Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Picture Gallery' started by miTunes75, May 10, 2007.
What settings sound the best to you on your EQ in iTunes? Show it.
Sounds harmless enough.
I can see this thread heading to the wasteland.
But. My EQ is off.
The tone controls on my Hi-Fi amp are switched out of the circuit.
Why colour the sound and change it, even more, to something other than what was recorded?
EDIT: miTunes75 judging from your EQ settings you don't like vocals much.
EDIT 2: I was wrong. there's some interesting stuff...
what makes you think i don't like vocals?
I honestly don't know how eqs really work - what each colums of settings represent. I try to make it sound good, but I'm still not 100% satisfied w/the current setting.
Because you cut the level of the frequencies where most vocals are.
Left hand side is lower frequencies, right hand side high frequencies and the middle are, surprisingly, mid frequencies.
Mine is off as well!
I want to hear what the producer had in mind.
Off. Do not like EQ.
I think I've gotten used to this sound and haven't made a move to change it.
I can remember when I put a CD player in my 1984 Z-28 (this was 1986), complete with 15 inch subs in the back deck, I was fooling with a separate EQ and couldn't find the sound I liked. The installer, a friend, turned it off. Being digital, it sounded best that way.
Personally, mine is switched off.
But don't forget the reason why Graphic EQs were included on Hi-Fis in the first place: so you can tailor them to your particular room/setup. For example, if your speakers are on a resonant wooden floor in the corner of the room, you may find some boomy low frequencies appearing - you can use the EQ to roll these off.
It is therefore meaningless to suggest that one person's setting is applicable to anyone else. But I would offer a few pointers:
1) Since iTunes' EQ is not the most incredible-sounding in the world, it is better to subtract problematic frequencies rather than boost stuff.
2) Adding lots of bottom and top (the "smile curve" or "Japanese Hi-Fi Sound") tends to sound more immediately impressive, but you lose a lot of the fine detail and presence that is in the mids.
3) Don't bother touching the EQs until you notice a problem that you feel needs correcting. I've never understood people who pull a hi-fi out of the box and immediately start moving controls to what they think are the "correct" settings.
Or, as my dad does:
Use some audio analysis software to discover what frequencies the room is tuned to and then set about with baffles and what-not to damped the hot spots.
Hmmm.... I'm not sure I need software algorithms to tell me whether I like something or not
He's making sure the room has a flat response so as to not colour the sound.
He's very serious about his Hi-Fi.
I was only kidding
Actually it's nice to see someone thinking about the room. So many people pointlessly spend a fortune on hi-fi equipment when a cheaper system and some carpet would have been better.... Just as long as he's not spending $100 on cables...
He makes his own from teflon coated silver wire.
His Hi-Fi is about £50Ks worth...
Wow! Is he aware that the actual monitoring systems where his favourite records were recorded are unlikely to have cost anything like that much? Not that this matters if he is just going subjectively for the 'nicest' sound (which is, after all, the point of hi-fi). But, in my experience, many audiophiles think they are going for an accurate 'studio' sound - which always seems a bit perverse to me since the whole point of accurate studio monitoring is to make sure things will sound nice on ordinary hi-fis...
I think his aim is to keep making improvements until no more detail can be eeked from the source.
He's spent a few hundred quid upgrading his Monitor Audio speakers: Replacing components in the crossovers, mounting the crossovers in vibration proof boxes on the outside of the speaker enclosure, rewiring etc. He took the speakers to a Hi-Fi dealers to compare to newer speakers.
They got to about £7500 stuff and the guys at the store were more impressed with his.
He hand braids 8 silver wires together for mains cabling too.
I think he's a little eccentric!
Flat, all the time. EQ = more distortion. I tend to listen to my stereo and not the EQ. I try never to listen to music through my computer speakers, although I have been planning on getting some Bowers & Wilkins speakers set up with my Mac though.
Getting into HiFi talk are we?
The nerdiest I've gone with my hifi is my Chord speaker cable. £30 a metre 10 core silver stuff. Sounds fantastic, but looking back I would have much more rather spent the money on CDs!
Not all studios have huge cabinet speakers but any good studio will have them. When I was in school in TN, all of the studios I went to and interned at had speakers costing at least $50,000 each.
It is true that a good engineer will do most of the mixing on a much cheaper set that gives a real world sound (Mackie's, Sony NS-10's, etc) but the high end speakers are there to point out any flaws in the recording, etc. Let's just say I've never heard Dark Side of the Moon sound so bloody good before or since!
If I want to listen to some good speakers I usually just turn my Onkyo receiver on and let the music flow. There's really no point in getting a blow-you-money system when the room it's in isn't made for music. Unless you've got baffles on the wall, sound proofing, etc. most of what differences in quality you think you are hearing is in your head.
Personally I don't use my iTunes EQ unless I have to. I have found that the output on my Nano royally sucks so I usually use "Rock" to get it to sound closer to the original. My car on the other hand is a different story. EQing is essential because cars are probably the worst place to listen to music.
You mean Yamaha NS-10s. Sony haven't made a decent pair of speakers for 40 odd years. The last 'good' speaker they made was a re-badged B&W.
Also I would like to point out that once you get past about £8000 on speakers, the changes could not be described as for better or worse. In all honesty, my favourite sounding speakers cost £10,000, and yet I have heard the B&W Prestige speakers set up connected to the same source (they cost £17.5k each) and I preferred the first pair. It's all a matter of opinion past that point.
You can get a pair of incredibly neutral almost zero distortion speakers for £3k, but what scientific instruments detect isn't what we're interested in. We're more interested in what our ears hear.
For example, recently I mixed a live recording (32 channel multitrack) with my little B&W DM303s. Really about the cheapest decent hifi speakers you can get, nothing amazing when compared to the kind of speakers you find in many studios. They aren't even particularly neutral, but I know them very very well (they were my first proper hifi product). I'd done a mix previously with some KRKs, and the engineer agreed with me that the final mix sounded better having now been mixed through my DM303s by me (not wanting to blow my own trumpet, but I'm the best sound mixer in the west ).
I've never used any studios in the US, but that is certainly not the trend in the UK. Olympic and Townhouse both use Genelecs for the 'Bigs', Eden uses a bespoke Quested design. Never used Abbey Road but I checked out their website and they are using Nautilus which will set you back $11,000 a pair - and I haven't heard anyone raving about them. Of course, things may be different in the US where there is more of a "gear fetish" culture in the music business.
Raving about what, the Nautilus speakers? They are among the best in the world if that's what you're talking about.
Well, I've never used them and I've no doubt they are very good. My point was that a studio does not need to spend $50,000 on a speaker to be considered "big league".
Being neutral or flat certainly is not the be-all-and-end-all for studio monitoring (NS10s, anyone?). What's important is not how the monitors sound - it's what they make you do.