# Music Equalizer and sound settings



## Saleri

Hi I recently started listening to more of classical music and was wondering if anyone could tell me the proper settings for my computers. Like what are the settings from 0-100 for bass, treble, center, space, focus. Also what are the settings for 65Hz,125 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 3k Hz, 6kHz, 9kHz, and 12kHz??


----------



## StevenOBrien

I'm a novice at this, but as far as I know, it's subjective. Many people just keep everything at the default settings, because the recording has already been equalized and fine-tuned for you by the studio engineers. You'd only usually mess with these settings if you're trying to make a recording more suitable for your own headphones/speakers, or if you yourself personally prefer listening to music with more bass, more treble, less mids, etc.

If you really want to, I'd just suggest you mess around with them and figure out what suits your tastes the most.


----------



## bigshot

The proper settings for a balanced response depend on your speakers/headphones. Calibration involves either measuring test tones with a microphone or by ear. It's not an easy process, but it can work wonders.

A simpler way of getting in the ballpark is to listen to a variety of recordings of acoustic instruments and by making gradual adjustments, find the sweet spot where the sound is most natural. That can take a month or more to do. I have about six recordings I use to set EQ. They highlight different sets of frequencies and allow me to hear descending runs which reveal imbalances. If you're interested, I can list those recordings for you.


----------



## opus55

I also do not change EQ settings, provided that the audio device is not adding its own color (extra bass or emphasized treble, etc). A decent audio system should not require drastic EQ change to get to a reasonably well balanced playback sound from recording.

I mess around with EQ a lot on my car stereo because the system just sucks


----------



## Renaissance

Most "Classical" EQs seem to use a slightly reduced amount of middles. But ...it's all subjective. I guess you would like more bass if you prefer large orchestral stuff with a lot of brass and percussion.


----------



## bigshot

Every speaker setup benefits from equalization. You can take speakers that measure perfectly and drop them in a living room and suddenly have imbalances all over the place. The interaction between the speakers and the room is the wild card in any system. CD players and solid state amps are all flat, but transducers (headphones and speakers) are not.

Equalization is not subjective. It's all about achieving a balanced representation across the entire audible spectrum. Once you get that objective baseline, you can subjectively adjust to your taste using the tone controls.


----------



## Head_case

My home hi-fi system doesn't have a graphic equaliser, playing directly from source only. The maker convincingly demonstrates how adding in a graphic equaliser circuit adds extra circuitry which messes up the purity of the sound signal. 

Like Opus55, I use the graphic equaliser for budget stereo systems to compensate for its weaknesses in the car. If I pack the shopping in the passenger side, the music gets fluffed up very quickly. Equally if I have an extra passenger, I have to turn up the bass. I'm not sure why, but it seems that the sound is very easily disturbed in a small space. 

With your computer, it really depends on the quality of your soundcard and output. We could recommend some theoretical settings, and discover that your computer is running on a 128kb sound card with 2.5mW 0.5inch speakers :/

What are you using?

Maybe you need an upsampler to get a decent bitrate. I usually upsample to 44.1kHz using a DAC from optical output. Then I feed it into a tube amplifier and output to closed back headphones like the Ultrasone Pro 900s. I find this way, MP3 junk files actually sound quite acceptable - the spatial dynamics and soundstaging is very acceptable for my listening standards (which is vinyl LP + tube pre-amp with 4x separate power amps + 4x 300W speakers.

Anyway, that's probably too much info :/


----------



## StevenOBrien

bigshot said:


> Every speaker setup benefits from equalization. You can take speakers that measure perfectly and drop them in a living room and suddenly have imbalances all over the place. The interaction between the speakers and the room is the wild card in any system. CD players and solid state amps are all flat, but transducers (headphones and speakers) are not.
> 
> Equalization is not subjective. It's all about achieving a balanced representation across the entire audible spectrum. Once you get that objective baseline, you can subjectively adjust to your taste using the tone controls.


Well, what I meant by subjective was that there's no "standard EQ settings" for listening to classical music, and that it depends on your setup and taste. I guess subjective has a slightly subjective meaning too .


----------



## davinci

Saleri said:


> Hi I recently started listening to more of classical music and was wondering if anyone could tell me the proper settings for my computers. Like what are the settings from 0-100 for bass, treble, center, space, focus. Also what are the settings for 65Hz,125 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 3k Hz, 6kHz, 9kHz, and 12kHz??


You should start with no EQ and listen to multiple recordings to compare. Classical music has the best engineering of all recorded music, and the studio has spent many hours to transfer this sound onto a master.
Use your EQ to compensate for your home stereo system and the room, or for your individual taste.


----------



## bigshot

Head_case said:


> My home hi-fi system doesn't have a graphic equaliser, playing directly from source only. The maker convincingly demonstrates how adding in a graphic equaliser circuit adds extra circuitry which messes up the purity of the sound signal.


That is completely false. Good equalizers are audibly transparent. When you look at a picture of a mixing board in a studio and you see all those dials in rows... those are equalizers for the various channels. Pros use equalizers, so should home audio enthusiasts.

Proper equalization improves the quality of all systems, from high end to humble.


----------



## bigshot

StevenOBrien said:


> Well, what I meant by subjective was that there's no "standard EQ settings" for listening to classical music, and that it depends on your setup and taste.


There is a standard. Classical music is almost always engineered for a flat response. If you calibrate your playback to a flat response too, just about every classical recording will sound great, even old ones from the mono era.

Rock music is different. The quality of engineering in rock is pretty poor. They don't always mix to a balanced response. They'll mix on tiny bookshelf speakers or other imbalanced systems because "that's what the kids will be listening on". That approach leads to crappy sound on every system.


----------



## Head_case

bigshot said:


> That is completely false. Good equalizers are audibly transparent. When you look at a picture of a mixing board in a studio and you see all those dials in rows... those are equalizers for the various channels. Pros use equalizers, so should home audio enthusiasts.
> 
> Proper equalization improves the quality of all systems, from high end to humble.


Now this is completely false lol!

Musical Fidelity famously pioneered their home audio system without graphic equalisers built in like the 1990's boogie boxes which offered boom boom. All pros use *loops *to insert their equalisers as add ons: not as built in units onto a computer's soundboard or a home megamusic CD-tape-Mini-disc-MP3 do it all box which is what we are talking about.










When a system is well built, it does not require a graphic equaliser for listening: we're not talking about studio recording or live performance. I use a graphic equaliser FX board if I need to hook up my tube amp with my Vox speakers for performance but not for hi-fi home listening 

PS - what you say is not completely false within your own headspace about the studio, but you're talking about something completely irrelevant to the set up which the OP describes. Try reading the OP's post again.


----------



## davinci

*Saleri*...Can u give some info on ur sound system. I understand you are playing back computer files (mp3s ?). Then where does the signal go... to a DAC and bookshelf speakers? Need more info for a proper answer.


----------



## bigshot

Sorry head case, but you're quoting sales pitch from high end equipment pamphlets (ie: snake oil). I've supervised recording sessions and mixes for CD and TV release, and every pro studio uses equalization as a primary tool available to every single channel in the mix. Equalization does NOT degrade the signal. It improves it.

As for playback, it isn't possible to design a system that works in any room. The interaction of speaker and room is the big wild card in any system and although room treatment is important, it only gets you part of the way there. Every system benefits from carefully applied equalization... even ones that are overpriced and overhyped by high end stereo salesmen.

The answer for the original poster is that there is no "one size fits all" setting for his equalization curve. No one on the internet can give him values to plug in. He needs to tune it himself to his particular speakers and room.


----------



## davinci

bigshot said:


> Sorry head case, but you're quoting sales pitch from high end equipment pamphlets (ie: snake oil). I've supervised recording sessions and mixes for CD and TV release, and every pro studio uses equalization as a primary tool available to every single channel in the mix. Equalization does NOT degrade the signal. It improves it.
> 
> As for playback, it isn't possible to design a system that works in any room. The interaction of speaker and room is the big wild card in any system and although room treatment is important, it only gets you part of the way there. Every system benefits from carefully applied equalization... even ones that are overpriced and overhyped by high end stereo salesmen.
> 
> The answer for the original poster is that there is no "one size fits all" setting for his equalization curve. No one on the internet can give him values to plug in. He needs to tune it himself to his particular speakers and room.


You speak the truth; I come from the analogue recording biz. But, looking at the OPs question, I don't think he understands that he needs to start out with zero EQ (flat). He has listed the frequencies of a parametric equalizer and needs to understand that there is no standard setting. I don't know if we have been very clear in answering his question.


----------



## Head_case

bigshot said:


> Sorry head case, but you're quoting sales pitch from high end equipment pamphlets (ie: snake oil). I've supervised recording sessions and mixes for CD and TV release, and every pro studio uses equalization as a primary tool available to every single channel in the mix. Equalization does NOT degrade the signal. It improves it.


Nope...wrong again....!

I'm referring to my own hi-fi system...which I've had for over 15 years. My view is based on the sensation (of pleasure) from hearing and visiting other friends at home with their own hi-fi set ups.

Professional experience has its purpose; but if it fails to recognise the context, like the OP's, that he's trying to play sound from a computer (perhaps an average hi-end spec one, like an Apple iMac or similar?):



> The answer for the original poster is that there is no "one size fits all" setting for his equalization curve. No one on the internet can give him values to plug in. He needs to tune it himself to his particular speakers and room.


That's just one answer....not the answer. It's not perhaps a very helpful one


----------



## Delicious Manager

Head_case said:


> My home hi-fi system doesn't have a graphic equaliser, playing directly from source only. The maker convincingly demonstrates how adding in a graphic equaliser circuit adds extra circuitry which messes up the purity of the sound signal.


I have always been aghast at people who think that equalisation is some kind of sin. Maybe (MAYBE) this would hold some water if:

1) The recording was perfectly balanced and produced in the first place (plenty aren't).
2) The playback medium was perfectly in sync with the recording/production media (they won't be).
3) The acoustic properties of the speakers/headphones and the listening room (if appropriate) match those of the recording studio (they won't).

... and that's before one allows for personal choice and taste.


----------



## Head_case

Well the OP has pitched a question....and the pitch at which we respond to the question determines the outcome.

In a culture surrounded by boogie boxes, antiquated Windows computers with cheap soundboards relying on graphic equalisers to mask the cruddy sound (i.e. this is not a source problem) and boom boxes to generate as much thump it bass, graphic equalisers are vital to this kind of consumer mentality.

However let's not confuse the issue: it is not about the quality of the sound. This is a personal style (modern day bourgeois aesthetic).



> Maybe (MAYBE) this would hold some water if:
> 
> 1) The recording was perfectly balanced and produced in the first place (plenty aren't).
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps I could recommend you some recordings. For instance, the EMI recordings of Szymanowski's Violin Concertos by Zehetmair and Rattle; the 3rd Symphony and Stabat Mater; the Praga recordings of the Dvorak Late String Quartet Cycle by the Prazak Quartet; the Kalabis String Quartet recordings by the Kocian Quartets and the Zemlinsky Quartets; the Quatuor Anton recordings of the Borodin Quartets on Harmonia Mundi; the Quatuor Molinari recordings of the Schnittke string quartets and the Pavel Haas Quartet recordings on Supraphon. Not lest - the Ruzickova harpischord recordings on the Czech Nibiru Records and the Knoblochova harpsichord recordings on Supraphon.
> 
> The source sound is impeccable to my ears: it's okay for a home enthusiast to think that his own graphic equaliser can do better than the skilled recording engineers who committed these classics onto record. They have achieved quite a feat in reproducing the tonal timbres of the strings and are highly satisfying on direct source i.e. without graphic equaliser.
> 
> Sure - you can throw in a loop graphic equaliser to 'adjust it' to your taste. However this is a personal matter; not a matter of what the truth is or not: aesthetics offers no such false objectivity. The recording engineers themselves, erstwhile not infallible, are highly skilled ... much more than I am and as a listener, I am able to distort my values and preferences by accommodating myself to the hyperbass drive of a graphic equaliser through classical conditioning, such that I consider everything normative as 'thin in bass' over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) The playback medium was perfectly in sync with the recording/production media (they won't be).
> 
> 
> 
> And in your view....is this perceptible to the average listener to music from a computer? If it is, then there would be a strong argument for a graphic equaliser mentality
> 
> 3) The acoustic properties of the speakers/headphones and the listening room (if appropriate) match those of the recording studio (they won't).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and that's before one allows for personal choice and taste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My guess is, that this personal choice and taste...precedes any de facto rationalisation. What irritates me, is rationalisation designed to justify personal choice and taste, as if it were the arbiter of truth based on theory. The logical consequences of a view like this, is that digital format is superior in ALL respects, to other media. This distortion of aesthetics, relies on technical logic, to argue its cause, thus relegating listening media like vinyl LPs, as 'subjective' and 'flawed' or down to 'personal taste'.
> 
> Which it is; as it is for digital formats; and graphic equalisers. It's just more honest in my view, when there are no illusions that graphic equalisers are a product of 'personal taste'.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Delicious Manager

Head_case said:


> In a culture surrounded by boogie boxes, antiquated Windows computers with cheap soundboards relying on graphic equalisers to mask the cruddy sound (i.e. this is not a source problem) and boom boxes to generate as much thump it bass, graphic equalisers are vital to this kind of consumer mentality.
> 
> However let's not confuse the issue: it is not about the quality of the sound. This is a personal style (modern day bourgeois aesthetic).


No Windows computer or crappy sound card here. And a decent pair of speakers (music is my business and so I can't bear to listen to sub-standard sound). Also, my remarks were broader-based than simply listening to music via a computer (I listen seriously to music through a proper hi-fi system, not perched at my desk).



Head_case said:


> Then perhaps I could recommend you some recordings. For instance, the EMI recordings of Szymanowski's Violin Concertos by Zehetmair and Rattle; the 3rd Symphony and Stabat Mater; the Praga recordings of the Dvorak Late String Quartet Cycle by the Prazak Quartet; the Kalabis String Quartet recordings by the Kocian Quartets and the Zemlinsky Quartets; the Quatuor Anton recordings of the Borodin Quartets on Harmonia Mundi; the Quatuor Molinari recordings of the Schnittke string quartets and the Pavel Haas Quartet recordings on Supraphon. Not lest - the Ruzickova harpischord recordings on the Czech Nibiru Records and the Knoblochova harpsichord recordings on Supraphon.
> 
> The source sound is impeccable to my ears: it's okay for a home enthusiast to think that his own graphic equaliser can do better than the skilled recording engineers who committed these classics onto record. They have achieved quite a feat in reproducing the tonal timbres of the strings and are highly satisfying on direct source i.e. without graphic equaliser.
> 
> Sure - you can throw in a loop graphic equaliser to 'adjust it' to your taste. However this is a personal matter; not a matter of what the truth is or not: aesthetics offers no such false objectivity. The recording engineers themselves, erstwhile not infallible, are highly skilled ... much more than I am and as a listener, I am able to distort my values and preferences by accommodating myself to the hyperbass drive of a graphic equaliser through classical conditioning, such that I consider everything normative as 'thin in bass' over time.


Perfection is in the ear of the beholder - and no two of us would have the same opinion. It is also highly influenced by the listening medium (as already stated).



Head_case said:


> And in your view....is this perceptible to the average listener to music from a computer? If it is, then there would be a strong argument for a graphic equaliser mentality


Yes, they are to me.



Head_case said:


> My guess is, that this personal choice and taste...precedes any de facto rationalisation. What irritates me, is rationalisation designed to justify personal choice and taste, as if it were the arbiter of truth based on theory. The logical consequences of a view like this, is that digital format is superior in ALL respects, to other media. This distortion of aesthetics, relies on technical logic, to argue its cause, thus relegating listening media like vinyl LPs, as 'subjective' and 'flawed' or down to 'personal taste'.
> 
> Which it is; as it is for digital formats; and graphic equalisers. It's just more honest in my view, when there are no illusions that graphic equalisers are a product of 'personal taste'.


But it ALWAYS comes down to personal choice. It doesn't need justification - no-one is right and no-one is wrong. What I object to is those manufacturers of amplifiers without any kind of graphic equalisation who take away the CHOICE to enjoy things to one's taste.


----------



## Arsakes

opus55 said:


> I also do not change EQ settings, provided that the audio device is not adding its own color (extra bass or emphasized treble, etc). A decent audio system should not require drastic EQ change to get to a reasonably well balanced playback sound from recording.
> 
> I mess around with EQ a lot on my car stereo because the system just sucks


Same car problem 

In general most of new speakers are fit to play the well recorded music at best. But if the Speaker is weak or doesn't have great quality, the player (program) isn't great or the recording is old or bad, you may want to change the equalizer. More/less treble or bass, using Jazz equalizer etc. I just don't recommend 'Classic' equalizer in general, it makes the work old ... unless you want to listen to a symphony full of Brass instruments


----------



## Head_case

> Originally Posted by Head_case
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is, that this personal choice and taste...precedes any de facto rationalisation. What irritates me, is rationalisation designed to justify personal choice and taste, as if it were the arbiter of truth based on theory. The logical consequences of a view like this, is that digital format is superior in ALL respects, to other media. This distortion of aesthetics, relies on technical logic, to argue its cause, thus relegating listening media like vinyl LPs, as 'subjective' and 'flawed' or down to 'personal taste'.
> 
> Which it is; as it is for digital formats; and graphic equalisers. It's just more honest in my view, when there are no illusions that graphic equalisers are a product of 'personal taste'.
> 
> 
> 
> But it ALWAYS comes down to personal choice. It doesn't need justification - no-one is right and no-one is wrong. What I object to is those manufacturers of amplifiers without any kind of graphic equalisation who take away the CHOICE to enjoy things to one's taste.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so apparently for Bigshot who holds that every pro [recording] studio uses graphic equalisation, and therefore listeners should follow the pro blindly.
> 
> You're mistaken about manufacturers who offer no built in graphic equalisation like Musical Fidelity's X series which was based on purity of sound signal and simplicity, offering direct source playing only.
> 
> Their amps all have a loop facility to add in a graphic equaliser if the consumer wishes to make this choice. The manufacturer did not deny the consumer of the choice: far from it: by stripping the amplifier back to direct source, you pay less minus the bells and whistles of the graphic equaliser, and then can throw one in of your choice if you wish to fork it out.
> 
> Maybe more should object to manufacturers who make amplifiers with built in graphic equalisers for the blind masses to follow: this is the product of following the pro recording engineer to a consumer level without the know how of what on earth the pro is doing. And paying for some extra circuitry which might be nice, but over and above direct source on a decent hi-fi?
> 
> A listener in a concert hall listening to a string quartet does not have graphic equalisation to adjust each string quartet player. Neither did the analogue 78rpm or gramaphone era. I loved my graphic equaliser on my Sony walkman when btw
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## millionrainbows

Saleri said:


> Hi I recently started listening to more of classical music and was wondering if anyone could tell me the proper settings for my computers. Like what are the settings from 0-100 for bass, treble, center, space, focus. Also what are the settings for 65Hz,125 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1kHz, 3k Hz, 6kHz, 9kHz, and 12kHz??


Didn't anybody here read the opening post, before launching-in to audiophile chatter? Saleri needs *basic information.*

"Quick and Dirty" info: Our ears are most sensitive to midrange frequencies, 1 kHz to 3 kHz (human voices range), so we can hear people warning us of sabre-tooth tigers, and hear babies crying. Too much boost in this area will create a "boxy" sound, although to counteract road noise in vehicles, this makes things audible.

Bass is most affected around 100 hz, which is what most electric bass players emphasize. Try boosting this on a rock CD with bass guitar and you will see.


----------



## bigshot

Head_case said:


> Professional experience has its purpose; but if it fails to recognise the context, like the OP's, that he's trying to play sound from a computer (perhaps an average hi-end spec one, like an Apple iMac or similar?)


The Mac is one of the best sources for music playback available. My system is Mac mini based, and not only does it do two channel music great, it can do high bitrate multichannel bluray sound and high definition video.

But it doesn't matter how good the source is, if you haven't balanced the response of your speakers, it's not going to sound its best. The speakers are what make the sound. If they aren't balanced, nothing you play through them is going to be balanced.

The goal of high end audio is too often to spend a lot of money for a false sense of peace of mind that the person you paid has dealt with all of the issues for you. The truth is that high end stereo salesmen and audiophile manufacturers are a lot better at parting you from your money than they are at helping you get great sound.

If you want great sound, you have to do the research yourself and figure out how sound works, then make informed choices based on science, not flowery audiophile-speak. That's what pros do. You'd do well to emulate them instead of saying that pro audio doesn't apply to home situations. Pro audio is great sounding audio, and it involves the application of principles and equipment, not just throwing money at the problem.


----------



## bigshot

Delicious Manager said:


> 1) The recording was perfectly balanced and produced in the first place (plenty aren't).
> 2) The playback medium was perfectly in sync with the recording/production media (they won't be).
> 3) The acoustic properties of the speakers/headphones and the listening room (if appropriate) match those of the recording studio (they won't)


1) Classical music is the most consistently well engineered genre of music. I have a system with a balanced response, and I can play just about any recording, even historical recordings, and they sound good. (That isn't true of rock music. It's all over the place.)

2) Redbook audio is perfectly capable of representing the sound created in the mix.

3) the whole point of equalizing is to calibrate your home speakers to the same standard as the ones the recording studio used. That is how you make the sound match what the engineers intended.


----------



## millionrainbows

Equalization is only used to correct speaker deficiencies. If your speakers lose their sound in a room, you've got the wrong speaker set-up. Add speakers, or subwoofers, if you are missing bass absorbed by carpet & furnishings.

I have an equalizer with a calibrated microphone, which analyzes the sound of your room.


----------



## bigshot

Head_case said:


> Not so apparently for Bigshot who holds that every pro [recording] studio uses graphic equalisation, and therefore listeners should follow the pro blindly.


Straw man.

What I actually said is, in order to get the best and most faithful sound, you need to calibrate your system to the established standard for the response curve. This doesn't happen by accident. Every set of speakers and every room deviates from this standard. The way to correct for this deviation is to equalize.

Would you like it if your player played the music at a slightly different speed than the one it was recorded at? Nope. You want the playback speed to precisely match the recording speed. Why wouldn't you want the frequency response curve to precisely match too?

High end audio that doesn't include tone controls or equalization is like a race car without a steering wheel.


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> Equalization is only used to correct speaker deficiencies. If your speakers lose their sound in a room, you've got the wrong speaker set-up.


ALL rooms affect the response, even carefully treated ones. You can create the flattest speakers in the world in an anchoic chamber, but drop them into any living room and that response is going to change. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of making sure your system is calibrated for your particular speakers and room. It isn't something you can fix by buying a better amp or nicer speakers. It requires a custom calibration.

The advantage of balanced response goes far beyond just having frequencies that might be absorbed by upholstered furniture. There is a principle called "auditory masking". Google it if you're interested. Imbalances in the frequency response, even small ones, can mask frequencies in other octaves. For instance, a slight spike in the upper mids can obliterate the treble, making the sound appear muffled. Imbalances like this exist throughout the audible spectrum, even in the best setups. When your response is balanced, the transparency of the sound increases significantly, and every frequency sounds clear. This is what people refer to as "detail".


----------



## Head_case

millionrainbows said:


> Didn't anybody here read the opening post, before launching-in to audiophile chatter? Saleri needs *basic information.*
> 
> "Quick and Dirty" info: Our ears are most sensitive to midrange frequencies, 1 kHz to 3 kHz (human voices range), so we can hear people warning us of sabre-tooth tigers, and hear babies crying. Too much boost in this area will create a "boxy" sound, although to counteract road noise in vehicles, this makes things audible.
> 
> Bass is most affected around 100 hz, which is what most electric bass players emphasize. Try boosting this on a rock CD with bass guitar and you will see.


Errmm....clearly not..! You deserve a dog bone 

The hobby horse seems to have galloped off and left the OP's question behind


----------



## bigshot

His question has been answered several times now... There is no setting that works for everyone. EQ settings need to be custom adjusted for the OP's particular speakers and room. (or headphones and head shape)


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> ALL rooms affect the response, even carefully treated ones. You can create the flattest speakers in the world in an anchoic chamber, but drop them into any living room and that response is going to change. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of making sure your system is calibrated for your particular speakers and room. It isn't something you can fix by buying a better amp or nicer speakers. It requires a custom calibration.


Literally, that's true, but I'm only concerned with common perceptible differences, like bass deficiency; not scientific data.

Head_case and bigshot are too bogged-down in theory, and too concerned with "being 
correct" than in giving experienced personal advice.:tiphat:


----------



## mitchflorida

I would disagree that there is such a thing as set it and forget it for classical music. However, people may leave it on a specific EQ setting because they can't be bothered to adjust it after every track or CD. Many classical recordings are deficient in one way or the other, and sometimes it is so acute that you have no choice but to adjust in the appropriate way. It is not one size fits all.


----------



## bigshot

Response curves in classical music is VERY consistent. If you are getting some that sound bad and others that sound good, odds are you have imbalances either in the bass or high end. Those are the areas where imbalances might show up or not depending on the recording. (Balance in the middle is easy to spot in just about every recording because that's where the bulk of the music lies.)


----------



## bigshot

millionrainbows said:


> Literally, that's true, but I'm only concerned with common perceptible differences, like bass deficiency; not scientific data.


I'm talking about sound quality in case you haven't noticed.


----------



## davinci

So *Saleri*, did any of these rants answer your question?


----------



## Neo Romanza

I use EQ, because I listen through headphones (most of the time) at my computer with a DAC/headphone amplifier. I'm not a fan of a flat EQ. I like hearing all the frequencies represented, but not to an overpoweringly degree. Just some minor tweaks here and there to get a better overall sound picture. I have a great stereo system, but I don't get to use too often because I like listening at a louder volume, especially with classical music and I don't want to disturb anyone.


----------



## haziz

Center all of them, i.e. no boost or decrement for any frequency range. I.E. eliminate the equalizer completely.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I just wanted to point out that I picked up my EQ dependency from my dad who was a pro audio engineer. I tried kicking the habit, but no amount of medication or counseling worked.


----------



## SONNET CLV

I wish this website had an EQ adjustment knob so I could selectively tune out certain responses while enhancing the prominence of others. Alas ...!

Frankly, there are "tools" (software, hardware) that allow for room and equipment acoustic measurement, to, as the REW website says, "help you optimize the acoustics of your listening room, studio or home theater and find the best locations for your speakers, subwoofers and listening position. ...Tools for generating audio test signals; measuring SPL and impedance; measuring frequency and impulse responses; measuring distortion; generating phase, group delay and spectral decay plots, waterfalls, spectrograms and energy-time curves; generating real time analyzer (RTA) plots; calculating reverberation times; calculating Thiele-Small parameters; determining the frequencies and decay times of modal resonances; displaying equalizer responses and automatically adjusting the settings of parametric equalizers to counter the effects of room modes and adjust responses to match a target curve...." blah blah blah.

Such devices are good when properly used.

Still, you can have a world-class multi-multi-band equalizer in your system and use it to "optimize" all sorts of parameters as analyzed and measured by your acoustic measurement tools and apply all this to top-end playback equipment and high-quality recorded material ... and still not _like_ the sound you hear. As already pointed out in previous posts, there remains a subjective element here. And that is you.

I know folks who prefer the sound of music from low-fi playback equipment over that of a live band playing in a venue in front of them. Many a "classical" listener occasionally to often finds the concert hall experience less visceral than the sound of the same orchestral music played back in their listening rooms on their preferred equipment.

I side with the equalizer crowd. But just as one might opt for the highest quality playback equipment one can afford, one should not settle for a sub-standard EQ device. Still, the subjective element is critical, if one wants to simply enjoy listening to his or her music. "Proper" equalization, whatever that may be, may not sound quite right to you. So, experiment with the knobs, a bit up here, a bit down there, and find a sound you want to spend time with. You likely won't be disappointed.

And remember, that same EQ setting that gives _you_ "the right sound" in your listening space will likely not work with any other space or equipment. Or any other listener. Or even for any other piece of music _you_ choose to listen to. Unless you are willing to settle for an "average", you'll have to reset your EQ for each recording you play, which you probably don't want to do. Decide now to settle for an average, one you find works adequately well for the largest number of recordings and/or types of music.

So, get out there. Put on some favorite music. Turn on the EQ. Listen. Tweak the controls. Listen. Repeat, and repeat .... And ... eventually you'll come to a place where you say "Wow! I like that."

And it's that "wow" factor that you _really_ want to achieve when listening to your music. It's not equalization.


----------



## Neo Romanza

SONNET CLV said:


> I wish this website had an EQ adjustment knob so I could selectively tune out certain responses while enhancing the prominence of others. Alas ...!
> 
> Frankly, there are "tools" (software, hardware) that allow for room and equipment acoustic measurement, to, as the REW website says, "help you optimize the acoustics of your listening room, studio or home theater and find the best locations for your speakers, subwoofers and listening position. ...Tools for generating audio test signals; measuring SPL and impedance; measuring frequency and impulse responses; measuring distortion; generating phase, group delay and spectral decay plots, waterfalls, spectrograms and energy-time curves; generating real time analyzer (RTA) plots; calculating reverberation times; calculating Thiele-Small parameters; determining the frequencies and decay times of modal resonances; displaying equalizer responses and automatically adjusting the settings of parametric equalizers to counter the effects of room modes and adjust responses to match a target curve...." blah blah blah.
> 
> Such devices are good when properly used.
> 
> Still, you can have a world-class multi-multi-band equalizer in your system and use it to "optimize" all sorts of parameters as analyzed and measured by your acoustic measurement tools and apply all this to top-end playback equipment and high-quality recorded material ... and still not _like_ the sound you hear. As already pointed out in previous posts, there remains a subjective element here. And that is you.
> 
> I know folks who prefer the sound of music from low-fi playback equipment over that of a live band playing in a venue in front of them. Many a "classical" listener occasionally to often finds the concert hall experience less visceral than the sound of the same orchestral music played back in their listening rooms on their preferred equipment.
> 
> I side with the equalizer crowd. But just as one might opt for the highest quality playback equipment one can afford, one should not settle for a sub-standard EQ device. Still, the subjective element is critical, if one wants to simply enjoy listening to his or her music. "Proper" equalization, whatever that may be, may not sound quite right to you. So, experiment with the knobs, a bit up here, a bit down there, and find a sound you want to spend time with. You likely won't be disappointed.
> 
> And remember, that same EQ setting that gives _you_ "the right sound" in your listening space will likely not work with any other space or equipment. Or any other listener. Or even for any other piece of music _you_ choose to listen to. Unless you are willing to settle for an "average", you'll have to reset your EQ for each recording you play, which you probably don't want to do. Decide now to settle for an average, one you find works adequately well for the largest number of recordings and/or types of music.
> 
> So, get out there. Put on some favorite music. Turn on the EQ. Listen. Tweak the controls. Listen. Repeat, and repeat .... And ... eventually you'll come to a place where you say "Wow! I like that."
> 
> And it's that "wow" factor that you _really_ want to achieve when listening to your music. It's not equalization.


Let's say you had a 10-band EQ like that found in the Music app on Apple. What would you set yours to? What's the "wow factor" for you?

Here's an example randomly pulled from Google images:


----------



## Op.123

I made a post about EQ when listening to opera in the opera forum a few hours ago. Completely unaware that a couple of hours this thread had been revived for the first time since 2012. Coincidences!


----------



## Scherzi Cat

I'm a big believer in leaving the EQ flat. As a sound recording engineer, I like to respect the way the recording was intended to be played. If it doesn't sound right you should listen on a different sound system or in a different room.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Scherzi Cat said:


> I'm a big believer in leaving the EQ flat. As a sound recording engineer, I like to respect the way the recording was intended to be played. If it doesn't sound right you should listen on a different sound system or in a different room.


My grandfather was a huge classical music fan and he often listened to his many CDs on a nice, high-end (for its time) stereo system. He was told by someone that when listening to classical music, it should always be played flat with no kind of EQ whatsoever. My dad and I were over his house one day and my grandfather played him something on this stereo (maybe it was Beethoven or Brahms...I can't remember) and my dad paused it almost immediately and told him that the overall sound picture was muffled and lacking all of the things that make music so special when played back through a good stereo: highs, mids and lows. My dad EQ'd his stereo and my grandfather's eyes widened. He couldn't believe what he heard. Suddenly, you could hear all of the registers of the orchestra and it was glorious. He told my dad that this was the best his stereo had ever sounded. My dad and I went over to his house a week later and his system was changed back to a flat EQ. Point of the story? It's all in the ear of the beholder. Some people like EQ and others loathe it. I personally can't stand a flat EQ. Lifeless, lacking in nuance and just flat out (no pun intended) boring sounding to me.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

When I used to listen to Rock and Metal, I was constantly playing with EQ settings; looking for that bass slam without blowing out my eardrums with the highs. I fiddled with the settings on every CD, sometimes on every different song.

Now that I listen primarily to Classical music, which is generally very well recorded, I don´t ever use or feel the need for EQ. 99% of my music collection sounds fantastic just the way it is.

It´s all there: crisp, clear highs, beautiful mids, and fantastic, clean, deep bass.

Good speakers help, too


----------



## Neo Romanza

Judas Priest Fan said:


> When I used to listen to Rock and Metal, I was constantly playing with EQ settings; looking for that bass slam without blowing out my eardrums with the highs. I fiddled with the settings on every CD, sometimes on every different song.
> 
> Now that I listen primarily to Classical music, which is generally very well recorded, I don´t ever use or feel the need for EQ. 99% of my music collection sounds fantastic just the way it is.
> 
> It´s all there: crisp, clear highs, beautiful mids, and fantastic, clean, deep bass.
> 
> Good speakers help, too


What about when you're listening through headphones? No EQ then?


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

I never use EQ; I just don´t feel the need for it. 

I´m not trying to convince anyone that you shouldn´t use it. I just don´t need it for Classical music recordings


----------



## Neo Romanza

I just got through tweaking the 10-band EQ in the Music app on my Macbook and it's set to a pleasing level now. There isn't any exaggeration in any of frequencies --- just a little boost in the bass and treble. The way I had before, certain recordings would introduce distortion at the highest peak. Definitely couldn't go on listening that way.


----------



## Joachim Raff

Just a slight adjustment on bass or treble might be needed. Some older recordings can be over bright or slightly dull depending on the venue and the recording equipment. Modern recordings should be near optimum


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

Neo Romanza said:


> What about when you're listening through headphones? No EQ then?


I was listening to Mahler´s 5th last Saturday using headphones and decided to reduce the frequencies under 80 Hz by 2.5 db. The bass seemed to be masking some more subtle content.

I think I like it better like this. Time will tell


----------



## NoCoPilot

My very first preamplifier, after I graduated from a receiver, was one of these:









I twiddled and I fiddled and I EQed and I played with ALL the knobs... until a year of so later, I learned that having everything flat sounded the best. I sold the Soundcraftman and bought a Nak 410.


----------

