You don’t have to equalize for each album, just equalize for the room and leave it alone.

I have been high end audio and pro audio and music recording in the past and have done sweetening of sound systems for many years. That being said, I feel the main reason to use EQ is to match the system to the room. As we all know many rooms are lacking to say the least. So to EQ the system to the room makes a lot of sense. The trick here is Not to fool with it once it is set. In my work l use a 1/3 band EQ for precise adjustments. Once the system is matched to the room you should hear how good or bad the actual recording is. Now that you have a great sounding room, the systems minor Tone controls can make any slight adjustment to make your recording sound better. That's my humble opinion. 😎

I happen to disagree. I'm also old school, and to me old school means having an EQ, lol. Back in the 80s and 90s high end hifi systems were sold w/ EQs. My philosophy to using EQs is that you can correct for the room's lack of good acoustics. Also, a bass boost is almost always necessary, at least back in the days of cassettes and CDs, as a physics professor once explained in a class to me: low frequencies are actually very difficult to bring out in terms of the physics of sound. When audio was first invented, the high frequencies came out louder than the low frequencies because you needed lots more power behind those low frequencies for the human ear to hear equally to the high ones. So eventually someone invented a loudness button that helped to bring out those bass frequencies and therefore balance the low w/ the mids and highs. EQ's correct for that even more by giving you fine control over WHICH frequencies to emphasize. EQ's also allow a person to fine tune a song to his own ears. Sure, you want the sound a producer intended, but you also want what your ears prefer to hear. It's kind of like food. A chef may like to add more salt than me. Sure, it's nice to have what the chef intended, but I'd rather customize the flavor to my own taste buds. That's why home cooking will always be 100 times better than going to a restaurant. I also know that audio producers use EQ's when they record and mix the sound. And in live concerts, the sound engineer ALWAYS uses an EQ because it helps to correct the sound for the room's acoustics - even if they're using a $50k sound system, an EQ is required. I actually miss not having an EQ. But FYI I clicked on the thumbs up because I respect your opinion and the video was very good.

I find Equalizers to be a must at least 15 band, Even low end speakers can sound pretty good with just a few tweaks of what you wanna hear. Instead of going through several pairs of speakers trying to find the sound that you’re looking for, buy a decent pair of speakers and turn them into great speakers. I often hear reviews of the speakers are too bright, but the rest of it is great. Well then you are able to tweak the brightness out of them now you have a speaker that you were looking for.

...but,..when they remove the basic tone controls from amps,...its crazy. As we do not hear music the same way..and there is an individual taste in everything we do. Removing these tone controls is like ...the producer of the amp saying listen to our format or leave it...lol

If I'm paying thousands of dollars for a pre-amp (such as the McIntosh C53) and it doesn't come with an EQ... I'm not happy. Thankfully McIntosh still puts an 8-band analog EQ on their flagship pre-amps.

I use to not use equalizers, until I tried one out and absolutely loved it. Bass, mid and Treble tone settings are only 3 bands, and typically at 100Hz, 1kHz, and 10kHz. Now that absolutely sucks and give barely anything to work with. I use equalizers because, number one, I can't afford expensive equipment, so a lot of times what I use is lacking and needs some sonic help. I use EQ's because I want more flexibility. On most of my EQ's I use there is an EQ defeat button so that I can easily do an A to B to A test to see if what I am changing is appropriate to the room, the music and to my ear. If you really don't want to run an EQ, then don't do it. No one is making anyone here do anything. I however will continue to use them until I build a system that won't require one, but even at that.... Why limit your ability to equalize to the room?

In my experience there's another reason for the use of an equalizer. Room acoustics correction. I use one and, with the help of a friend who's equipped with the right software and microphone, we were able to correct a 60 Hz 'bump' on the frequency response graph of my room. I use a 32 band graphic equalizer which gives me plenty of flexibility. Other than 'dealing' with this low frequency issue, all other frequencies are left alone. The whole thing is balanced from the source to the amps and it has made an audible difference in the bass region of my room. Am I going to get 'excommunicated' as a heretic Paul? .....great video and lovely surroundings...only think missing, a glass of wine!

How can you call EQing sonic degradation when nearly every audio recording has gone through an EQ either on individual tracks or on the master bus?!?

I wonder if Paul is a musician, if he's every recorded in a professional studio and if he's ever participated in a mixing session. I can tell you from experience, there's the sound and mix in the recording studio during the recording, the sound of the final mix after countless playbacks and there's mix that winds up being sold to the public. I had a couple of chances to record with a big band comprised of the top studio players in Los Angeles. Every musician was mic'd individually and the levels were adjusted by the recording engineer during recording. On play back, the levels were readjusted to the artist's liking after soliciting input from everybody, including me. Then, the recording goes through EQ. Again, with a lot of input from a lot of people. Finally, everybody's happy, except... That's not the mix that get sold to the public. You can't release an album that sounds great on a set of Miller & Kreisler reference speakers played in an acoustically perfect room. You have to remix to get it to sound decent on cheaper equipment. The only way I can get a recording I'm on to sound anywhere close to the "ideal" first mix I heard in the studio is to use EQ on playback. I don't have the same sound system the album was mixed on and my room doesn't have the acoustics of the studio where the album was mixed. The idea that anyone can assemble stereo system and put in any given room and come anywhere close to what the artist intended without EQ on playback is inane.

I know I am commenting on an old video however I really like using an equalizer to make music sound the way I want it to sound. To me, adjusting the eq is part of the fun of listening to music. I still find making mixtapes to listen to on my old Pioneer super tuner III in my old car fun. Listening is a personal experience.

An Equalizer (or plain tone control) is very important for me. I want the same sound i experienced when seeing a band live. If i've seen a band live, most of the time studio mastering becomes unimportant. I just want the same sound as i experienced live. Why? Because I WANT it. End of discussion. And that's no problem as my amp has the knobs to make it so, and i have enough headphones to choose from. I really don't care how other people do it as i have so much fun listening how i want it.

The "purist" audiophiles and manufacturers who are too cheap/lazy to implement proper tone controls are taking a lot of fun out of the hobby. Source direct for those folks who think they want to hear "how the artist intended" and tone controls for those who want to enjoy their music. Ironically though, to many audiophiles, tone controls = bad. But DSP = good. Still cannot figure out that line of thought.

I haven't had an equalizer in years but any of the stereos I had in the past that had a graphic equalizer I remember as being my favorites. The EQ can tweak the instruments you want to emphasize.

I love EQ!! I have lots of music where the tonal balance is all over the map, especially vinyl. Using a studio-quality EQ has increased my enjoyment of vinyl immensely. So many records have the low end reduced to increase play time. It's amazing to hear that low end restored with a good Eq.... NO, not a graphic EQ... the last thing you want is 10 narrow phasey bands. Having good tone controls, or a 3 or 4 band parametric Eq can increase your vinyl enjoyment!! High quality pressings don't need it, so i just bypass. I don't understand the "purists" who would rather listen to poor tonal balance.

paul be so chill, he don't give a damn. love this man.

Really awesome deck you have there, Paul love it! Great style and decor. Love how your house is nestled up into the trees, too.

My Goldenear Triton Fives are passive woofers, (anthem 225w amp, Yamaha pre, and 10" KELF Sub). Using the base control via Yamaha's app, I get perfect crossover for base. When I put the Towers to FLAT even using the crossover on the KELF, I cannot get it 'just right' without going 3/4 on the preamp bass control for the towers woofers. For me, it seems i have to have a EQ/bass control (listen mostly to classical and some pop). But then again, this works for me. LOVE the vid's Paul - thanks for all the time you give us.

I use 2 graphic equalizers in my system to compensate for hearing loss.

I've spent hours and hours to EQ (equalizer apo + peace gui) my setup (akg k712 + fiio k3) and now I made a 300 euros setup sound like a 2000 euros one. It's really astonishing. What it takes is patience and a lot of listening. Besides I added a room simulation plugin, so now it's like listening to speakers. ps. Beware of clipping when equalizing.

EQ is best to help with less than perfect room acoustics . I have a WAF, and EQ does wonders for the speaker placement issue(s) I have. Same with balance controls. My gosh, so may products without a balance control. Many of us do not have perfect speaker and room symmetry. I could have a system without a balance control in my current room setup.

I have to laugh at all these audiophile purists who will go out and buy different speakers and amps and DACs and cables and interconnects to get the 'color' or 'tone' that they think they like, but are horrified by the thought of an equalizer to do the same thing.

Dsp and room treatment. Two musts for high end sound.

I have twin Altec 29 band EQs on my Sansui /JBL setup. I've used the EQs very successfully to get things sounding right when I move to a new house or different room in my current home. I have no need to fiddle with them once I get everything sounding right. There is no need to change them with every song. I can easily defeat them with the push of a button so I've tested their effects on fidelity many times and they have never failed to make things better by a pretty large margin, so I'm a life long EQ fan. I've also had atleast 7 bands of EQ in every car stereo install I've done

I use the Schiit Loki on my TT to adjust poor recordings. Its works very well and it's very subtle to color the sound too much. Regardless I have a Tube preamp, so with tube rolling this does stuff as well.

Bass EQ isn't solely about trying to recover missing bass. While I agree that using EQ to force lower bass out of a system that wasn't designed to go that low in the first place is abuse of EQ, it certainly does have proper applications. I strenuously object to the wholesale dismissal of EQ for addressing system/room deficiencies. Most listening rooms will create peaks and notches in frequency response regardless of how refined and smooth the speakers are. For example, my main speakers have a resonant peak at 41.5Hz, which is also very close to one of the room's primary resonances at 40Hz. You can imagine what happens with that combination. If I want smooth bass, use of EQ is not optional. Even if the speakers lacked any resonant peak, the room would need correction. I have a 12-stage parametric equalizer and put it to good use. Graphic equalizers, however, are rarely the appropriate tool. On the other hand, one should not try to chase down and correct every response ripple across the band. First of all, it can drive one to neurosis, and second, the sharply-tuned filtering that is often required may do more harm than good to the overall sound. To some extent we should let our speakers sound the way they came.

They can also be used to compensate for failing ears (but only to some extent ... there are frequencies that I now cannot hear, no matter how loud.) Since tone controls are now passe, I would need one if I ever replace my vintage receiver.

I love using an EQ with all my music, like you said Paul, some songs might not have the low or high frequencies you would like to enjoy in a song, in my personal opinion, no song is perfect, or at least acceptable for every listener, at the end of the day, it’s about we as listeners enjoying the music we like. Love your videos Paul, you are a world of help to us who want to learn and enjoy the magic of music.

Thank you for the great advice! I used to lean pretty heavily on graphic eq's and I've since learned to fix issues with amps, speakers and gain settings. I do use the built-in digital graphic eq in my receiver however because I find the tweeters on my floor-standing L/R speakers to be a bit loud and crisp so I pull down 4k, 8k and 16k a little to soften the treble a bit and that's it. Everything else is flat.

Different room dynamics, treatments, equipment specifications, recording quality, mastering, differing hearing capabilities between listeners, makes it almost required to have a good equalizer in the system. A better option, would be to incorporate a DSP into the mix, so that a perfectly balanced frequency output can be achieved through your audio system. Much more easier to tweak a knob or setting than to replace major components in your system.

The original entry into this EQ stuff came when Altec developed the "Acousti-voicing" system for PA systems. That was a number of tuned filters that went between the pre amplifier/mixer and the power amplifier. Its sole purpose was to attenuate room resonance frequencies that could cause feedback. This worked very well and made many systems have much more gain before feedback occurred. It did alter the character of the sound from the system. Later electronic "graphic" equalizers also permitted boosting frequencies as well as attenuating them. The only thing worse than a tone control is a graphic equalizer with boosted frequencies. Unless your audio system is in a very resonant room, equalization is a band aid. Either fix the room or put up with the known problems.

I always enjoy Paul's vids and sense of humor. Thanks Paul. My favorite method of equalization is on my vintage receivers/amps with triple tone controls. This enables you to scoop out the midrange and boost the bass and treble. Gives you the classic smiley face equalizer curve as required. But Paul, you speak of equalizers as tools to "correct" or "compensate" poor recordings. And I 100% agree with you on that. But also, on the otherside of the spectrum (probably a bad place to use this expression but too late now), there are those of us who like to enhance the music with a bit of tweaking, even if it's a close to perfect recording, source material, etc. We may be doing this due to the limitations of our own systems, or we may be doing it because it's fun to have this kind of control. As far as the purists go, I bet most of them will NOT be able to hear any distortion or aberrations cause by a quality equalizer. And if they say they can, they're probably full of it and should go be a salesman somewhere. Yes, we all want one wire with gain. But live a little, will ya? Pull out all the stops. Lose that clinical, dry sound and enjoy the music like you never have before. At present, I have none of my equalizers in any of my systems, but I certainly use tone controls and loudness buttons at will. Enjoy the music 🎶 ! EQ or no EQ, as long as it sounds good.

Great video. What about speakers? The crossover network is an eq, n’est ce pas? Often with more passive components in the signal path than an amplifier.?

I like the idea of being able to create a different profile for each song. Years ago, I stumbled upon that feature in iTunes that allows you to make adjustments to the individual tracks stored on your library. I tried it out more than a few times, and for it being a part of Apple's architecture, for the iTunes user, it could be a godsend.

Im using a vintage stereo with bass mid treb and adjustable freq turnover. It actually sounds pretty good as is but when I use pink noise and rta the room its all over the place. Just ordered a 31 band 2 channel eq. I hope it sounds good, I think it will be fun to flatten the room and eliminate the frequencies below my speakers response and see the difference.

Is there a way to have a parametric equalizer on a turntable and if we do so, does it means that our sound will be processed like it would be with a dac?

LOVE your videos Paul!! Keep em' coming!! Thanks!!

1:04 "When you equalize something, you are trying to change the characteristic of either the equipment that you're using or the music that you're listening to." This is *EXACTLY* what tube amps are used for! Trying to change the characteristics using tubes is not any different... System perfection does not exist. There are always little flaws that can be polished by using an EQ, but you have to understand what you're doing and most people don't to take the effort. At lower volume levels, loudness EQ even makes the music itself more real, since the human ear is less sensitive to highs and lows when the volume is low (fletcher munson curve).

What Paul was talking about at the end is dynamic EQ which is being heavily researched in car audio as a DSP feature. B&O 3D+ systems on recent high end Audi's have this feature and possibly others but I have heard it and you barely notice it's there(not intrusive), still enough to make a noticeable improvement added on top of DSP and ANC in a noisy environment

in the end its all about enjoying the music , i support whatever it takes to get there.

What about room correction, like with Dirac? In my point of view that's a multiple EQ in freqency, balance, timing etc. But also based on one or the other optimum, which is choosen by Dirac. Is this also not done in high-end, even if it solves a lot of issues (in an easy / digital way)?

The Poweramp app for Android systems has this digital EQ function that you mentioned. I can set the EQ by artist, by genre, album, etc., or by output device. It is a lifesaver when I switch vehicles that are tied to my phone's Bluetooth.

Hey Paul, you mentioned this idea quite a while ago.... still waiting..... and its a great idea. YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!

Would it make sense to correct a hearing loss of specific frequencies (everything over 3khz is -10db and more / everything under 1khz is minus 10db and more) with an equalizer? And if yes, how would you do it? I would really appreciate if someone could point me a direction :)

For headphones may it help better?

My thoughts: EQ should only be used to enhance aspects that you have difficulty obtaining due to short comings in your hearing. Ultimate goal should be to have the sound as close to the source material, but if you can't hear the source material at that particular frequency then a minor change to enhance that should be considered.

you are correct sir, if every session were well recorded. Why are there still 2 or 3 star quality reviews of new recordings?

I remember seeing the Cello Audio Palette reviewed in the HiFi Answers mag decades ago. It cost a fortune. But I have an old Pioneer Graphic Equalizer, must be 30 years old, which I switch in through my tape loop for bad recordings - noticeably Pink Floyd's Animals on vinyl. Love the music but hate the recording. Haven't heard the latest Immersion Remaster; it might be better. I have to confess, I love watching the little green flouro bars go up and down in time with the music. 55 and I haven't grown up yet.

But Paul, aren't Crossovers EQs? A a DIY audiophile I use parametric EQs a lot, for crossing over components and also for fixing holes and bumps in the frequency range. Usually get the highest increase I made like, say I made a +3db increase in 400hz because the response was low in that region, so I'll also lower 3db the entire signal so it doesn't clip the preamp. But yeah, I do it a lot for great results and it ends up room's correcting, not only speaker-correcting as I do the measurements inside the room the speaker will be used.

I use graphic equalizers in my system, because of the roomgain, because my diy magnestat loudspeakers!! I meassure with REW before the amp on the equalizers so the tube preamp still colour the sound!!

Been more into headphones lately and many folks seen to have a place for equalizers for headphones. Even companties have specific eq correction curves in roon for specific headphones such as audeze. You see many plannar headphones that respond well to equalization. Some dynamic headphones not so much.

Correctional EQ is a must in my opinion. If you've ever been in the studio to record and master a recording. You will understand that it could sound fantastic on the equipment in the studio and sound totally different on your equipment at home. In the studio you have a different source, different power amp , different speakers and different room acoustics. It's never gotta sound the same. So correctional EQ is a must. Nothing more than a 6db boost should not sound forced.

95% of the recording out there are "poor recordings" and deserve nothing more then a Walmart clock radio. Rock and roll, 99.9%. It a total misconception on you are fooling with a EQ every 10 seconds. Most set and forget. Maybe if something is recorded as bad as say any Go Go's CDs then you actually may move a slide but at least you have the option. Sounds like you added a "loudness" switch to the Sprout. As for the "pathway"....that stuff is bat crap crazy. Start counting how many connections you have between where your music starts and where it comes out you speakers. Speakers connected to crossovers (by wire), crossovers connected to amps (by cables), a number of interconnects between pieces and we have not even been inside of any of the equipment yet. But one more thing with insane benefits in the pathway is just a bridge to far. I would really like to know how many "hi end" folks on here have acoustic players come to your home and they compare what they sound like compared to their system? I will put money on it's a lot less then 1%. I've tried but it's really had to get someone that has made a legitimate recording to play my basement. So you have to take the builders word on it that it will work the same in your space even though they put their stuff together and judge it in a totally different environment. Start mixing in different equipment, different rooms, different environments, different recordings.... unless you are in the studio at the time of the recording (not the sound booth because it's been changed by the time it gets there due to mic set up and the room they are playing in) you will never hear a prefect recording. As for "a high in system that is lacking bass you should buy new speakers...." I have 4 Infinity RS IIIa's and as good as they sound they are pretty lifeless and flat without a EQ. Not sure what speaker I could buy that would fix that being I have multiple sets of pretty good speakers around me that don't even sound close to what they sound like. So I will save my money and hassle and just move the slider up a tiny bit. Last, what it sounds like..... Just bought the same EQ I have had for almost 40 years (Technics SH8025) on my main system for a little project I'm doing. Someone had 1/4" jacks install in it so they could use it before their amp. So what was supposed to be "live" was actually already "EQ'ed".

You would need a Trinnov ST2 room Correction module with EQ. That works magic to correct your room acoustic. It improves your sound quality dramatically.

I built an equalizer a few decades back (the circuit came from Glass audio as I recall), I remember winding the inductors for it using a drill and a variac. The low end required 1,350 turns of #42 wire on a potcore, that was a chore but I did get a pair would that were matched within 1% of each other. The equalizer worked but I never liked the "sound" of it in my systems. Now it sits up on a shelf in my basement.

Hi Paul McGowan, kindly recommend 2- 3 small equalizers able to deliver 20-25Hz subbasa. Thanks.

When i'm listening to an album it's not like i'm trying to mix a record. I like to set an EQ to my own listening tastes, often depending on the genre of music. Sometimes i'm the mood for mega-bass, sometimes I want to hear it closer to the intended levels. Although i've noticed with 5.1 and up channel stuff I tend to stick with no EQ as i'm usually aiming for the intended experience.

I find that using an equalizer for my cassette deck really helps improve the sound especially for tapes encoded with Dolby B. I don't use the eq for anything else.

The acoustics of every room is different. Its impossible to fix the massive dips that room acoustics can introduce; understanding that 100% optimal speaker placement is not always an option or practical. We need better EQ tech.

I guess its hard for Paul to go too deep into the weeds on this issue for a short video, but there can be big differences in the degradation that EQs can add to a system, beyond noise and distortion. Phase shift on some units can be terrible, especially when each band has a different amount of shift, can really blur the image of the music in a way that's hard to explain but definitely noticeable.

That sounds like it would be an amazing EQ Could come in handy for that back woods hobo music I like to listen to...

hi paul. ive got to disagree a little regarding being able to change the sound of song tracks .i listen to all sorts of music , either a lot of bass for dance music or hardly no bass for classical , jazz etc..i have your stream dac and the bhk 250 to process my music.but when the dac is plugged straight into the amp for me the bass is too much on some tracks.it sounds great ,dont get me wrong, but some times over powering. so what i do is use my yamaha pre amp to adjust the treble or bass and by going so i can usually get all types sounding great.i have to turn the bass and the bass trim all the way down as far as it will go on some tracks so its not over whelming . i was going to buy a bhk pre amp to replace my yamaha . however ive learnt theres no bass or treble control and because of this i wont be purchasing it. a direct decision because of no control . maybe in the next gen of the bhk it may be something you may build in to the appliance? otherwise im left with my yamaha that even though cost 3 times as less, for me personally does a better job.especially having bass boost on sprout , you must know that all music is not the same and needs a tweak now and then.

There are many recordings that I am not satisfied with and would love to occasionally use an eq also with advent of streaming and various sources sometimes I feel eq is a good thing to have. I use a clarion eq in my Car will think of a way to use on my active 3 way system at home on mac or windows as eq software instead of a hardware equaliser

Totally agree with Paul; a graphic EQ is a nice thing to have but better to have it off the chain. I have a Yamaha EQ550, ok, I know is not, by any means, an audiophile device but I have it there almost always off; when I want to listen to a recording that needs help I just turn it on and use the processor loop of my preamp.

Imo when using an eq always cut never boosts that's what an amp is for to boost your eq is for cutting

Was that an added sound effect @ 5.12, or something you somehow made yourself?

I use a good quality parametric EQ to compensate for lack of wall and room acoustics.... we use Mac, Denon and other high quality equipment. So maybe Paul is right for source material but he left out compensation of room characteristics. My problem is wife refuses to let me improve room acoustics with floor and wall treatments.... so I installed the EQ!! 😬

I listen to a lot of music that was poorly recorded; a little tone control/EQ is imperative for a good listening experience. As for EQing a system itself... a huge advantage of active speakers, is the ability to trim/adjust bass for room response. I don't own active, but I see that as a major plus.

EQs are as necessary to the end user as they are the sound engineer. Especially for surround sound. Speaker efficiency and quality of amplification always differ, just as volume preferences differ. There's always a sweet spot with dB. And a flat Hz curve isn't linear as the volume adjusts. To be able to smooth out that Hz can make a tremendous difference in sq. Parametric EQs take it one step closer. Long live the EQ!

I've lived with equalizers in studios and in home environments and in both cases it comes down to judiciously using the right tools for the job. Graphic equalizers are rarely appropriate for home use because the user even audiophiles are rarely able to properly use them as they are too complicated for casual use and should be setup with the assistance of an analytical tool. Today that tool exists called Room EQ Wizard for a free download and needs a calibrated microphone which is very affordable. Also today a superior method of EQ exists by virtue of DSP called miniDSP which is leaps and bounds better than analog equalizers. While it is smart to use good speakers and room treatments especially bass trap absorbers, the use of modern methods of speaker and room correction equalization can really help to get a good sounding setup. After that, a simple analog equalizer is all that is needed to allow the adjustments for variations in recordings, non acute hearing loss, playback volume, or genres.

Still think Japanese high end manufacturers like Luxman, Esoteric or accuphase get it right by providing tone control. Always prefer 3-band control (treble, mid-range and bass) but 2 is better than nothing. Allows for more flexibility depending on recording quality or speaker/recording match.

Like you....I'm older! My hearing has lost some of the high frequencies. I find much TV and other broadcast speech is unintelligible. I have to put the subtitles on. Lyrics on songs are not so bad. I have a high quality hifi set up(s) and feel a high fidelity graphic equaliser could put things right for me. Can you review or point me towards some please? Simon

i like how you explane things. thanks

I own the Drawmer 1974 Stereo EQ. This EQ sounds wonderful and has helped me out of every bad recorded Music"

I have a graphic equaliser from 1877. It is a pair of socks left to me by my Great Grandad. I use them to reduce volume from my wind-up phonograph. I stuff them in the horn, or “put a sock in it”.

EQs can help compensate for poor recordings, imperfect rooms, speaker shortcomings, and the listeners personal auditory health.

I tend to avoid any form of equalization if I can. I’m a 100% headphone audiophile so that means I can hear how bad some recordings are quite distinctly. It might be tempting to use some form of EQ for those occasions but even then, an equalizer is not going to make a bad recording sound “better”. All it can do is emphasize (or de-emphasize) certain frequencies to make it more listenable. The problem with equalization (analog and digital) is that it cannot change the elements within a recording. I can think of a large number of early 90’s GRP label jazz recordings for example that sound like the mics were set up 50 feet away! There’s no depth, height, sound staging, etc. Lifeless as can be. There could have been many reasons for this but the point is many of those recordings are preserved in those ways. You can certainty apply some equalization to bring out more bass or treble but the same inherent recording issues cannot and will not be changed. I acknowledge it can make these recording more “fun” or tolerable to listen to but in my opinion, it’s just an enhanced version of what was recorded at that time. Is that actually making the music better? However, with the advancement of digital editing and better DACs, remasters can be made from the original sources and a better version of those recordings can be had which could bring out more of the detail of that recording. But again, it can’t change how it was done originally so what sounded flat and distance before being remastered might sound a bit more “dimensional” and slightly more immediate after being remastered. Having said that, I’m sure that sound engineers might tweak certain frequencies through the use of equalization which arguably could enhance the sound to give it more weight and substance but I would rather listen to a remastering that way than slapping some external analog or digital equalizer and making my own adjustments. But then I’m sure there’s a segment of the audiophile populous who feel their own adjustments would better than anything coming from the original recording engineers.

Not sure of which company it was either Sony or JVC had an EQ system the listened to a set of micro tones at the start of an album and it would setup the motorised EQ to the optimum settings for that recording (it didn't catch on) but was a good idea at the time

Paul, is there any progress on your digital EQ?

Yes u need one because no company makes gear good enough to make all music sound good

I have a eq. It is just another bullet in my gun. It helps compensate for my hearing issues. Use it or not.

Paul the cosmic mystery still remains that if you Listen to anything with a decent dac and switch to direct then back to dac instantly sound is enhanced so isn’t the dac basically already a EQ ????

I find something that I think is pretty normal, and set the default 10 band EQ settings with that on my computer. I think recently it has been later OMD albums, previously I calibrated it to Depeche Mode albums. Every now and again you can tell whatever someone else had is not the same and I have to alter the low side or something.

Thanks, Paul!

Oh come now, room Acoustics drastically alter the sound of everyone's speakers regardless of what you had for equipment. Once you have your speakers place where you want them you should always get the best EQ you can afford and run a full spectrum analysis on the room to EQ your system then from there tweak tiny bits here and there if you haven't done this you have no idea what I'm talking about and no idea what a vast difference it can make in any system, so anyone out there who can't afford the absolute top-tier equipment that these people are all raising about should give this a shot believe me if you do it right and you have a good Spectrum analyzer with good microphones properly calibrated you will be absolutely shocked at how great your system sounds. And guess what how about some blind A B testing, you know the things the so-called audiophiles fear the most??

My sub has LP crossover frequency and level controls and this is all I need to correct for lows mastering.

EQ is a must. You can bring tones and instruments to the front that you’ve never heard. It opens up new sonic options and is good for room correction.

Use an ND filter on your phone. Moment make a case and adapter for it.

Actually i love analog EQ more than software ones .. don't know why exactly ! .. but i find that digital EQs harms the sound more ! BTW .. Neutron android player can do remembering a specific eq preset to a specific track or album

Some player already have the ability to remember the EQ. It can be also embedded to the track itself like metadata i believe. I do love using a digital dsp to correct some of my system down performance as i don't have all my budget in my gear.

PEQ -- you control the curve (or lack of) vs the "built-in curve" that ALL gear has

There are excellent reasons for eq, one being because NO speakers when measured 360 degrees all the way around are perfectly flat, which means it would be appropriate to make adjustments with a eq. Additionally a speaker measures different from room to room so you can compensate with that using a EQ. Lastly, unless your using the same speaker and equipment as the recording engineer when they produced the sound....your not hearing it exactly the same as the engineer did anyway!! He heard it one way, made adjustments, then you play it back on different equipment in a different room and it sounds different....so you may as well compensate it to your liking anyway. The purest feasible way to listen is to set up all your equipment in the room and EQ each channel to be perfectly flat at the listening point....you can NEVER get that without EQ, doesnt matter how much your spending. Go watch Erin's Audio Corner, he will show you with his very high end test equipment.

I use a five band parametric EQ when transferring old live concert cassette tapes to digital, but that's about it.

EQ's it can be used to modify the tone to suit the acoustic character istics of a room, to make creative sound, 🎵 .

I love my Pioneer GR 777 with my amplifiers loudness button pushed in !!! Systems sound bland without an EQ! And the dancing lights is an audiophile bonus any day!

I don't often disagree with Paul's videos but this one I most definitely do. Most of us have neither the space nor the finances to replace components over and over until we get the "perfect" sound for our ears and musical tastes. While this is precisely what this one bit of equipment can do for us. At the end of the day what someone else says is not as important as what you hear. I have gone with and without EQ for about 50 years now and find that with the correct one for the system, one that is of comparable quality to the rest of your components, you can end up with a more pleasing audible end result.

I am confused... room correction algorithms such as DIRAC are essentially an EQ whose parameters are informed by the room characteristics. Are you against such room correction methods as well?

Yamaha YDG2030. You can drive that from you computer through MIDI DIN sockets (using a simple USB-Midi interface), and thus with a bit of programming and looking at the MIDI implementation, call for the right EQ profile when firing a given digital file track. Audirvana can also do that for you using Steinberg V.S.T. Effects In the signal path. Your computer thus becomes the hi-end digital equalizer.... note for the Yam : the Y-485 XLR in/out sockets are NOT AES/EBU. The Other XLRs are analog ins and outs. A few Other Pro-Audio Yamaha Gear use AES/EBU, but not this one...

If you don't like EQ, stop playing vinyl records please. Your RIAA phono amp is an aggressive EQ compensating for the aggressive EQ done in the mastering process of vinyl records. Studios use EQ. Concerts use EQ. So why do you need EQ in your home system? Your room and speakers are never going to be perfect and in many cases, a high quality EQ can do huge improvement even on your > US$100,000 system. Then comes your hearing. Personally my hearing is dropping above 12kHz and by giving a +4dB boost around 12kHz, I effectively rejuvenate my hearing getting some lost details balanced again. Taste is another reason for EQ. I like a bit extra sub bass even on a linear system some +3dB around 40Hz. Bass boost is also about how loud you play. If you play at concert level, perhaps bass boost is not needed, but your hearing fails (check equal-loudness contour: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour) to represent, especially the bass, at lower volume levels. Thus to get a tonal balanced music at lower volumes, you really need increased bass. And finally, EQ can be done in the DIGITAL DOMAIN or in the ANALOG DOMAIN. If you are listening to Tidal, Qobuz or other digital music, your EQ can be done digitally using DSP e.g. like in this product: www.minidsp.com/products/streaming-hd-series/shd Of course Paul is right that it's important to have a good system to begin with and not use EQ to fix a bad system! It's sort of like going to your doctor and getting pills to fix a bad diet.

When it comes to playing deep dub or reggae, one of the requirements is the ability to drop out the mid range to reduce overall volume, and increase the bass levels. Very difficult to do without a graphic equalizer, its not about volume or decibels, its about maxing the power vibe at the deep end, without, ' loud'.