[Mag]

Ever since I got my BCD-1 I had it hooked up through my equalizer. After tweaking with the equalizer yesterday I came to the realization that the BCD 1 sounds even better without the equalizer. How could I be such an idiot? So now I have go back and re-listen to all my cd's, which I've been doing since January.
Please forgive me and disregard everything I said about equalizers.

[Phil A]

Ever since I got my BCD-1 I had it hooked up through my equalizer. After tweaking with the equalizer yesterday I came to the realization that the BCD 1 sounds even better without the equalizer. How could I be such an idiot? So now I have go back and re-listen to all my cd's, which I've been doing since January.
Please forgive me and disregard everything I said about equalizers.

You're not an idiot.  You experimented and learned (and it's still OK if someone prefers it - some people like vanilla and some chocolate).  As I previously noted many moons ago I had a parametric equalizer and played with it in many scenarios.  I even had a preamp at one point with a parametric equalizer built in.  I've heard digital equalization that sounded decent (Tact - Google it), but it was silly expensive and I am a big fan of taking care of the major room problems with treatments (I've found readyacoustics.com stuff to be very good and not silly expensive if you get the parts and do it yourself) and not driving yourself audiophile crazy and enjoy the music.

[Mag]

Thank You for the your kind words of support.
Anyway the equalizer serves it purpose with my other source, which is to boost the bass 6 DB because of pyschoaccoustics.
The BCD-1's bass resolution and gain however is sufficient so that the equalizer isn't needed. Disconnecting it from equalizer was like lifting a vale off the music.

[James Tanner]

Thank You for the your kind words of support.
Anyway the equalizer serves it purpose with my other source, which is to boost the bass 6 DB because of pyschoaccoustics.
The BCD-1's bass resolution and gain however is sufficient so that the equalizer isn't needed. Disconnecting it from equalizer was like lifting a vale off the music.

Hi Phil,

I am interested in your comments regarding Digital Equalization (Tact).  Did you find it superior to the Graphic or Parametric equalizers?
I have a 7.1 channel experimental digital equalizer coming to me from a US company they want me to test.

james

[Phil A]

Thank You for the your kind words of support.
Anyway the equalizer serves it purpose with my other source, which is to boost the bass 6 DB because of pyschoaccoustics.
The BCD-1's bass resolution and gain however is sufficient so that the equalizer isn't needed. Disconnecting it from equalizer was like lifting a vale off the music.

Hi Phil,

I am interested in your comments regarding Digital Equalization (Tact).  Did you find it superior to the Graphic or Parametric equalizers?
I have a 7.1 channel experimental digital equalizer coming to me from a US company they want me to test.

james

James, I had a brief opportunity to play with the Tact system when I went to the New York Home Entertainment Expo about 5 yrs. back.  Certainly a bit different than your run of the mill equalizer.  It was on a real high end system (forget exactly what they had - there were so many exhibits it was like a kid in a candy store).  I also have listened to Meridian's top-of-the-line amplified speakers (about 3 yrs. back $49k list) which have similar type features.  I'd guess to the extent you incorporate something well done like that in a DSP circuit, it's certainly something high end home theater people might be interested in.  I have not had the opportunity to hear the stuff vs. treating the room and obviously in an environment they I am familar enough with to really say it has or does not have impact on what can be heard.  I'd guess if it is done in the digital domain properly before the signal gets converted to analog it's likely a better thing vs. your avg. equalizer and may not be a horrible thing at all.

[1oldguy]

Wondering just who among us use an EQ and what type and well as any comments both to the practical and benefits or negatives encountered?   

[bpape]

I run a 5 band, fully overlapping (10Hz-20kHz for every band), parametric EQ on the sub in my home theater system.  I have all 5 bands set at 50hz and below.   It's great for stubborn peaks down in the high 30's and down where treatment just has to be extremely large to be effective (think feet thick here...)

Bryan

[Sasha]

If I may jump in, I had Tact in my system (PMC IB2, 7BN SST, BP26), did not keep it and would not keep it regardless of the cost.
It kills transparency, dynamics.

[charmerci]

"I even had a preamp at one point with a parametric equalizer built in."

Did you have an SAE? I had one of those so many years ago! 

[Phil A]

"I even had a preamp at one point with a parametric equalizer built in."

Did you have an SAE? I had one of those so many years ago! 

No - it was a Phase Linear.  I had a bunch of their gear when I first got into separates around 1980-1982 (when I was 5 of course )

[charmerci]

I had mine in 1979 - when I was still in the crib! 

[Phil A]

I had mine in 1979 - when I was still in the crib! 

I thought this was the picture of your crib - http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/137/e/AAAAAr1nbVIAAAAAATfmFA.jpg

I had an SAE power amp.  I think the model I had was the 310 (same as the 3100 w/o the lights/power meter on the front) that was 50WPC.  I used it with my Koss Time Delay as the 15WPC amp built in to the Koss sucked.  For a bit when I was bored with my outboard parametric EQ, I used it between the output of the Koss Time Delay and the SAE amp (that's why my crib was padded heavily).  I then sold the outboard EQ and bought the preamp with the EQ.  It was fun in the old days to have surround sound when no one else did.  I have a Pioneer TVX9500 too which was a hi-fi (dual channel mono) TV tuner so I could watch broadcasted movies and hear them in surround sound.  No stereo was broadcast back then for TV in the dark ages.

[Mad Mr H]

Wondering just who among us use an EQ and what type and well as any comments both to the practical and benefits or negatives encountered?

I am a commercial AV engineer.....

I have been using DSP items for a long time.......

The issue each time seems to be A to D, then D to A is always going to add two more stages into the signal flow, and although this then allows control of PEQ, Delay, limit etc. it will always add two stages that we would be better without.

Of course , Going digital out of CD  into DSP in the digital domain is an excellent idea, still need analogue out but keeps the signal flow simple.

[Mad Mr H]

If I may jump in, I had Tact in my system (PMC IB2, 7BN SST, BP26), did not keep it and would not keep it regardless of the cost.
It kills transparency, dynamics.

I believe the same......


I am about to scrap my BSS minidrive 3 way active Tannoy system, and change it to a PMC BB5i Passive running an amp for each frequency band, but WITHOUT the PEQ & cross overs from the BSS device.

I can always go back to an active BB5i with the BSS kit. Would prefer Bryston xover but I have spare BSS kit.....and a cost issue at the mo.......in time all Bryston signal kit would be nice.