what equalizer settings does /g/ use?
>Increasing distortion
not retarded ones like that
>>51744472
My room sounds pretty good, it's better to not mess it up.
>using an equalizer with headphones
>>51744472
The only one that makes me happy.
I mix so I EQ according to the sound I want. If listening to music, I may only crank the low end some.
If everything is >0dB, then all you've done is increase volume and distortion.
Balance your equalizer, equal parts above and below.
I cut off the bass because my speakers are ridiculous in how much they exaggerate it. other than that I'm a fan of flat response (music producer)
>>51744555
The image in the op isn't mine, it's the first thing I found in google images
I always use "V".
I thought windows had an equalizer...
What a pathetic OS...
Too bad I won't ever switch to apple and Linux doesn't run my games/solidworks
>>51744682
Windows relies on your Sound Drivers to handle that. Realtek has an EQ available through your control panel.
Why the fuck would you want to change that much the sound of the recording?
>>51744759
There should be a system-wide equalizer, to equalize the experience...
>>51744787
Like Equalizer APO or something.
>>51744765
Room/headphone correction
>>51744845
Sure, for slight modification. But like OP pic? An almost 12 dB increase for a specific frequency, that's just completely changing the sound of the music.
>>51744472
(Wagekeks turn up the treble.)
Alpha Neets turn up the bass.
>>51744787
Realtek is system wide dumbass. They made the chipset, they made the driver, they made the equalizer.
>raising levels on a digital equalizer
Enjoy your clipping, retard. Everyone knows you're supposed to only lower levels on EQs.
None.
Sometimes I turn the treble up on one of my pairs of speakers for certain albums but other than that it eq doesn't get touched.
>>51744971
Digital equalizers have the magical ability to account for boosts.
The whole 'boosting is bad' meme came from shitty analog equipment.
>>51744924
Have you seen loudspeaker measurements in a room?
The itunes EQ is awful, but much greater deviations can be observed in a room.
>>51744996
No they don't you retard. If you raise levels on a digital EQ, there is a good chance that you'll clip a well mastered recording.
The boosting is bad meme comes from every kind of equipment that doesn't have infinite dynamic range(i.e nothing that has or ever will exist)
>>51745036
If you make drop on an EQ you can clip the track. The math of equalizers is generally similar (minimum phase) analog or digital domain.
Dynamic range is not a real problem.
>>51745036
Just remember, cutting frequencies also increase the need for high dynamic range.
Equalizers should only be used for room correction. (for the end user)
>>51745063
>If you make drop on an EQ you can clip the track
Which results in a silent sample, as opposed to an audibly distorted sample if you raise EQ levels.
I can't eq for shit. I feel like it's a placebo whenever I change anything.
>>51744540
>flat eq
hey, finally someone who gets i-
>setting it to 0.0db on every band
>enabling equalizer
for
what
fucking
purpose.
No EQ because I'm too lazy to get a good mike and SPL meter and take proper measurements.
>>51745289
I just use my good headphones(HD600) to listen to some songs I know very well and then adjust my speaker's EQ accordingly.
>>51745302
So you're saying that by default programs are EQing behind the scenes and you actually have to enable the EQ and set it to flat to actually have flat bands? I doubt it.
>>51745328
If you have a good pair of speakers, they would be much more accurate than the HD600.
I mostly just tune down annoying sounding peaks via Equalizer APO. Doesn't take much of a mic to locate them with something like Room EQ Wizard.
>>51745150
I don't get it. You can still clip using an all pass filter, just like you can clip making drop alone using an EQ.
>>51745344
Not really.
>>51745379
The HD600 aren't terribly accurate compared to speakers.
>>51745421
It's a busted pair, try again.
>>51745344
...except the reason you're EQing your room in the first place is because the speakers aren't good enough to avoid the room's coloring.
Also, unless you have a $5,000 set of speakers, they're probably not better than the HD600 anyways.
>software equalizer
>>51745440
What? They just aren't that accurate. Speakers can be much flatter esp in upper frequencies. Even the HD600 has lots of rolled off bass.
>>51745455
I'm saying that the H600 is not a good flat reference point.
>Using shitty algorithms that take away from the sonic experience the artist intended you to hear
I like how the smallest boost is still higher than 0dB. Fuck me up family
>>51745491
>I'm saying that the H600 is not a good flat reference point.
Except they're a great flat reference point and much better than any speaker system that hasn't been meticulously calibrated to its room using an EQ, and even then they're probably better.
>>51745535
I'm assuming a decent pair of monitors here.
The room is going mostly hurt sub 200 hz, and above that it gets increasingly less relevant and much flatter. The HD600 has massively rolled off bass; you can't call that flat at all.
>>51745463
The correct way to do it. That said there are a lot of shitty equalizers. EQ APO is fantastic.
>>51745491
They are far less flat in the lower frequencies, so it isn't better there. The "rolloff" would be impressive bass extension in floor standing loudspeakers.
>>51745517
That's the opposite of what a proper use of EQ is.
This. Sometimes I just turn it off depending on what headset I have on.
>>51745552
>The HD600 has massively rolled off bass
The inaudible sub sub sub bass is massively rolled off, yeah. Otherwise, going by that chart you post, the bass coloring varies from -1db to +5db. Good luck achieving that degree of accuracy with speakers in a room, and at all positions in the room.
I'm using the ATH-M50 should I move some levels on the equalizer, or is leaving it flat the right thing to do?
Is there a site that tells you how you should put the equalizer depending on the headphone you select?
>>51744472
>>51744497
>>51744540
>how not to use software EQ
>>51745250
>altering frequency response
>placebo
Oh yeah I'm on /g/. Is your EQ even on? Are you boosting 10Hz or something?
>>51744787
>>51744682
Use EQ APO. Better than anything else I've come across on any OS. Low latency and high quality parametric equalizer. It's system wide, can use any output or input, supports virtually infinite number of filters and you can use the Peace GUI.
>>51745804
>I feel like
>experts in the recording studio trying to make music and other audio sound good on anything it gets reproduced on
>amateur hour idiots EQing their hard work to death because they think they need MOAR BASSSSSSSSS
Idiots.
>>51745917
I'm not defending bad EQ jobs, but plenty of records are produced like shit.
>>51745917
>experts in the recording studio trying to make music and other audio sound good on anything it gets reproduced on
See>>51745379
>>51745917
Do you always listen to music in the same recording studio?
>>51745936
Only post-loudness war recordings, and 99.999% of those albums are shit anyway. Music hasn't been good in a long time.
>>51745999
>Music hasn't been good in a long time.
Okay gramps. There are plenty of badly produced demo tapes from the 80s or whatever by the way.
>>51745999
>Music hasn't been good in a long time.
*Music hasn't been great in a long time.
It's been on and off good with the last decade, regardless of what le right generation would have you believe about how we're in the golden age of music right now because Death Grips can release on bandcamp for free.
>>51745917
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvWo6VdPCWs
>>51746046
I love how dumb kids will counter the fact that things are pretty much universally bad now with "oh, but back in the day there were a few bad things!"
Goddamn idiot.
Name any fucking modern band even half worth listening to. Oh right, you can't, it's all goddamn dancenoise bullshit you listen to while sitting in the corner of the club desperately hoping for some girl to come over and pay any amount of attention to you.
>>51745804
>how not to use software EQ
More like how I don't use software EQ
Good job, dingus. You posted an opinion as if it was fact. >>>/lgbt/
>>51746182
>it's all goddamn dancenoise bullshit
That's not even remotely true.
Name some genres you like and I'll see if I can peg something you'd like.
>>51746182
Stop using this LEWRONGGENERATION troll shit
its not working
This is what works best for me on my xonar essence sxt with my soundstaged sennheiser hd555
perfect for any music. It's a "loudnes" optimization witch just makes music sound better.
4
4
4
-2
-2
-2
-4
-4
-4
-8
-8
-8
-5
-5
-5
3
3
3
past those numbers into a textfile in a verticl ecolumn and save as .feq and open in foobar2k
>>51746403
>v-shape
Absolutely pleb tier.
>>51744472
Balanced just the way I like it, plus niggabass.
Just fuck my config up senpai.
How does apo/peace work? Do I trust the graph or the eq gain values? A lot of the graph shows the frequency response exceeding the gain values. For instance, a gain of +4 could be +8 on the graph. So I drop the pre amp by -8. What value should I trust?
>>51746427
Whoops
>>51746790
Post your configuration. Chances are that your bands may be overlapping a lot
>>51746484
>>51746987
I hate mids for some reason, so I usually have 1k set at the lowest, forming the typical V shaped EQ.
>>51747111
Just so you know, Q refers to how selective the filter is, how tightly and narrow the effect is focused on.
Specifically, it is the center frequency of the filter divided by the range of frequencies that the filter retains half effectiveness over.
Therefore, increasing the Q narrows the range of each filter, lowering the Q spreads it further.
Your bass filters are overlapping like crazy, increase the Q of some filters or just use one large peaking or shelf filter.
>>51746002
what theme
>>51747458
Anonymous, you are of genius! I have to say that I'm used to headphones with a bass boost and was pretty disappointed by the microfiber overear pads that replaced the pleather on ears for my headphones. The headphones still don't have the same "punch" but they're a lot more comfortable to wear
>all the plebs in this thread
>>51744472
here you go faggot
pic related
>>51744472
I use one intended to make my headphones as linear as possible
No point in posting since its different for every model
I have a custom one set for every album i listen to. Most albums are mixed with different equipment, in different studios, with different producers, and different air humidity. To use a single EQ profile is downright negligence on your part.
>>51750135
albums are mastered as they intended to but your equipment is not flat so EQ helps you make your equipment to give more flat response.
it's not for "remastering at home" idiot.
Equalizer APO
http://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/
It's unreal how well this thing works with auto tuning. Makes even the shittiest speakers sound reasonable.
>>51744472
>>51750498
gonna try this now
no equalizer
I dislike it
>>51744472
Settings that suit my speakers and room.
Help redpill an audio pleb, friends.
Is an amplifier+DAC something worth getting? Or only if I have a really good pair of headphones?
I got a better headset and after fucking with equalizer settings a bit to what I would like, I hear some popping and cracking every once in a while with deep bass.
Is that a sign my headset is shittier than I thought, or is my motherboard (i5-2500k) soundcard just too shit for the job I'm giving it? Or should I just get a fucking regular soundcard instead of the amplifier n shit?
>>51745440
Once i took my modded HD555, and shoot a lot of sinewaves into it from 40hz to 10k and fiddled with the EQ until i heard all these sines equally loud. The resulting curve was almost like the inverse of what we can see on your graphs which is cool, theory werks.
>>51745463
this should make you happy
Top one for my mic, bottom one for my audio output
>>51746403
f2k default EQ is something you should never use
>>51744472
>increasing clipping and distortion by not knowing how to use preamp
>killing the mids
>not embracing a flat signature
>>51750848
>cracking and popping
Yup. A amp+dac would probably benefit you.
>>51745463
Are hardware EQs actually better or just memes? I know nothing about signal processing, though I will probably take a class on that next semester.
>>51748286
>Shitty basic multiband EQ
>Not pleb
>>51744472
depends on the speakers of headphones I'm using
I just try to make the minimum changes to make it sound accurate, since I want to prevent rounding errors.
>>51751690
>speakers of headphones
*or
>>51745785
Depends what you like really.. I also have the said headphones and no eq needed.
>>51746002
>200% bass boost
>>51751529
He probably has Sennheiser headphones. Would explain the EQ.
Because cheap earphones
>>51746200
Not him but all three of the posts clearly have no fucking clue what they're doing with their EQ. >>51744497 this on especially since it has the preamp AND the bands both set to positive values.
>>51751832
Nothing should be over that line (0db) unless you lower the preamp volume (leftmost slider)
>>51751891
Yeah but I like some distortion. I'm constantly changing it every day.
>>51751898
spot the tube amp lover
It just werks
>>51750498
it looks like it's capable of affecting input audio as well, how does it work? I tried messing with it but the audio didn't change.
>>51751956
What the fuck are you doing
Turn the preamp the fuck down.
It needs a clean
>people unironically use hardware EQ
>>51752159
>no use of CPU
>easy to set up
>can have a very high precision depending on your hardware
>can even have some other features, such as a limiter
>>51752190
I don't buy it. Pushing everything through analog filters seems like it'd be worse than some digital modification
>>51752224
Have you ever seen how much CPU high-end audio processors use from the CPU? Knowing that some try to recreate the same effects as hardware.
Software effects can have some bugs and processing errors, whereas with analogs processors, a resistor is a resistor.
But it is true that low-end analog processors don’t always have a better sound than software. Also the difference is only slightly audible with high-end stuff, software or hardware, only professionals will hear the difference.
>>51752190
>analog EQ
It's garbage.
>>51752281
>Have you ever seen how much CPU high-end audio processors use from the CPU?
What is this, 2003? EqualizerAPO uses little to no CPU. You literally don't know what you're talking about. Analog processors never have better sound than software, they can only introduce more problems than EQ in the digital domain.
>>51750765
here is placebo i am running in my free time
>>51752294
I use T-RackS, which provides in my opinion one of the best sounds I can get from software VSTs, and this uses a lot of CPU. There are software EQs that use almost nothing, indeed, but to me they are not the best ones.
>>51752323
You're really getting into placebo territory when you're talking about EQ software sounding 'bad' (excluding obviously crappy non-parametric EQ software)
Then again people still fling shit over minimum vs linear phase sounding entirely different so I have little faith in sense coming to these people. Audio is seriously the worst offender when it comes to snake oil.
Listen me experts. Is there any point in buying cheap acoustic foam and bass traps to try to treat my room a little? The absorption coefficients aren't great on the shit I'm looking at but it still should at least do something, right?
>>51751913
You'd wish the distortion introduced by digital clipping would be anywhere near as "pleasing" as harmonic distortion. Clipping is nasty.
>>51752641
Bass traps need some work to be properly effective. Small pieces of foam won't do a thing there. Absorbers in moderation can help with the nasty echoing most undamped rooms have.
>>51745785
You should definitely learn how to EQ and do it. Those are very colored headphones.
>>51751550
Not meme status but a high quality software EQ does everything more cleanly than a HW encoder ever could and gives you a ton of more options while at it too.
>>51746200
The people who posted their first three EQ setups into this thread have no fucking clue how to EQ in software. The program is shit and the filters go well over 0dBfs.
>>51752950
>very colored headphones
I mean they may not be anywhere near the best monitor headphones but fuck they aren't Beats either.
I have this problem where s-sounds by vocalists can sound excessively sharp. How would I go about equalizing that away in foobar?
>>51753128
Yeah they aren't Beats and Beats vary a great deal, too. Solo 2 for example is actually nice, better than M50X, but most of the Beats lineup is just awful.
>>51753163
Do not use the garbage EQ found in foobar2k. Get EQ APO.
That problem just sounds like your headphones/speakers have a sharp resonance around 5-6kHz(or possibly a bit lower) which you need to nullify. You need to use a sine sweep the detect the exact frequency where that resonance is and then use a high Q filter with proper amplitude to cut it. Easiest way to do it would be to get Sinegen, sweep through the frequency response spectrum to the point where the sound gets noticeably peaky/sharp(should be quite close to 5kHz if s is sharp) and then just add a filter with EQ APO to that frequency.
>>51753235
Thanks, but Sinegen seems like some bullshit adware and/or malware program. Anything else that would do the same thing?
>>51744472
>2015
>not using parametric equalizers
>>51744472
>2015
>using a gui to equalize# for Soundmagic E10
af="lavfi=[dynaudnorm=g=3,bass=f=125:width_type=o:width=5:g=-20,equalizer=f=1200:width_type=q:width=0.67:g=-5,equalizer=f=6800:width_type=q:width=1.41:g=-8,equalizer=f=13000:width_type=q:width=0.67:g=-5,volume=volume=8dB:precision=fixed]"
>>51753386
The sites Sinegen is being distributed right now are shady as fuck. I found a legit version, ran some scans on it and as far as I could tell, it did nothing to my computer. Sine sweeps(just audio files) do the same thing but aren't as intuitive imo. Look for a sine tone generator, you can find some Web based versions which let you create your own sweeps. Make a logarithmic sweep from 1kHz and up to 10kHz for example. It should cover all the frequencies causing the problem you have now. Listen through it and try to spot the frequency which has a sharp resonance. It might take some trial and error to get right. Playing the sine sweeps in foobar2000 with the spectrum analyzer visualization can help you spot the frequency better.
>>51753473
I don't hear anything unusual when I play back a 1K to 10K sweep. Or I don't know what I should be listening for. It just steadily increases in pitch as expected.
When I play back a song with one of those sharp sounds, there's a spike in 7.7K and 11K. More the former than the latter.
>>51744472
I don't.
>>51753627
Do you get those sharp sounds when the passage is loud? Might be distortion from either your side or the song is poorly mastered
>>51753793
It seems to be mostly an issue with loud music.
My phones are ATH-A900X, by the way.
>>51753627
Yet you still hear s as very sharp in music? Just one song or all songs? This could be just bad mastering of a specific track/album.
Which headphones/speakers are you using?
Nigger bass
>>51752281
>bugs and processing errors, whereas with analogs processors, a resistor is a resistor
Analog resistors are part resistor, part LC, part generally nonlinear. Nowhere near the the idealization that can come from a digital filter. The math behind it isn't that crazy.
>>51752323
Minimum phase EQ is low overhead, minimum latency, and is less likely to come up with peculiar artifacts than the other "high quality" EQ based around linear phase.
>>51752348
>sounding entirely different
They actually do if you use enough of it.
>>51753963
What do you have it plugged into, some external amp/dac or onboard?
>>51753969
It happens in many songs.
Maybe it is bad mastering, but would studios really have equipment worse than mine?
>>51753995
Xonar Essence ST's headphone amp.
>>51754028
>studios
No but some masters might be compensating for the lack of fidelity of an average consumer system by boosting areas which are usually missing or rolled off. "Radio" versions generally are loud and have emphasized high frequencies.
Pic related is the frequency response of those AD900X. Quite peaky in the highs but overall the upper mids and most of highs are recessed. The sharp resonances might stand out from there. I'd make a careful EQ preset for them and try to see if the problem still persists if your gear is accurate.
>>51754028
I'm going to install EQ APO tonight or tomorrow and see if I can adjust it.
For reference, the tsu-sounds at 0:07 and 0:16 (and se-sound at 0:10) here are those sharp sounds:
https://d.maxfile.ro/loclhyydme.mp4
It's of course worse on the CD. And actually in this case the mastering is poor because the sound starts breaking in the loudest parts.
>>51754426
Yeah meant to reply to >>51754356
>>51754426
This is really poor bitrate. It just sounds like shit. Don't think it's anything on your side.
>>51746182
>projecting this much
Your angst is showing
>>51754454
Yeah it sounds bad since it's a webm of a TV recording, but it should still illustrate what I mean. On the CD the s-sounds are much harsher.
Maybe it's
>>51754536
*Maybe it's just the songs (what a time to be alive if this passes for professional work).
>>51753235
>Solo 2 for example is actually nice, better than M50X
Not if you want monitor headphones, which was my point.
>>51750995
>almost like the inverse of what we can see on your graphs which is cool, theory werks
The part about the difference between red and black curves? It's not the HD600 though.
>>51754699
Sure. I wouldn't use either for monitoring or listening. Too inaccurate.
Is there any app on android that will allow me to import profile from electri-q?
>>51755834
I know of the convolver function on Viper4Android, but you to generate an impulse file with the EQ.
I don't know of any others myself.
>>51748129
> what theme
Afterlife.
>>51756008
Looks interesting and there is guide of it on headfi.
Thanks man.
>>51744472
:^)
>>51756371
>>51756008
Here is the big DB of irs files.
>https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vbnj47jcnbgrvkv/GoCSHIuTWm
>>51756567
What the fuck are you doing
>>51756631
listening to music :3
This cleans up the bass on sennheiser momentum I think.
>>51756618
Was that Joe Bloggs' IR database?
>>51756782
I thought the highs on the Momentum were unfixable, and the worst part about it.
I only use it on my phone to make the headphones I used on it not painful.
>>51752950
Good thing no distortion is ever pleasing, only idiots think otherwise.
>>51752950
>Clipping
>what is 32-bit floating point processing?
>>51756892
Yes,turns out the fucker had my headphones set up so I just downloaded Viper and set up the convolver.
Now I have pretty much the same sound as in foobar+electri-q,but i cant find the crossfeed option in viper to get the full sound that i want.
>>51757354
I kinda agree. While some harmonic distortion might in some cases be pleasing, I'd rather not have it. High fidelity over everything. I'd rather hear a shitty recording as it is rather than masking details with distortion.
>>51757385
Something you don't use in listening and something which won't fix anything if you go above 0dBfs using EQ. High bit depth sure gives you a lot of headroom with DSP but you still have to know what you are doing. 16bit easily gives you enough dynamic range for EQ in listening. As for mastering, just use the highest available.
>>51757479
I think he set it up as he like it, based on measurements and his taste.
Sadly I don't think the convolver allows for a cross channel operation. If it did, you could even include a fully realistic HRIR.
I think there is a crossfeed aspect to V4A under cross channel.
>>51757779
> think he set it up as he like it
Which is as flat response as possible,the same thing I am after.
> think he set it up as he like it
Thanks,I will give it a look right away.
>>51757623
>Something you don't use in listening
If you are an idiot.
>>51757623
>which won't fix anything if you go above 0dBfs using EQ
You are retarded.
>>51757860
>Which is as flat response as possible
Based on the measurement of one model.
People with more than 2-3db in eq need to just fucking kill themselves
>>51757951
How else are you gonna get something reminiscent of bass in Sennheiser headphones
>>>>>>>>audiophiles
>>51746412
It's good though
>>51757931
meh,I don't want to go full autist.
>>51744472
None. I listen to music as it was intended.
>>51758387
>as it was intended
usually mastered by a retard with zero audio knowledge. enjoy your shit, I guess..
>>51758286
No v shape is for niggers.
>>51758387
I like to do that too, hence I EQ. What kind of magical playback gear do you use which have flat response throughout the spectrum without the use of equalizer?
Why, the opposite of the anechoic response I've measured of my loudspeakers, of course!
>>51746872
App name?
>>51758804
More videos please
>>51758804
>anechoic measurements used for EQ in a room
how retarded are you
>>51744472
Never felt the need to eq my system.
>>51758932
enjoy your inaccurate response
Equalizer APO. 30+ filters. No GUI. Ear + microphone frequency response tuned. Distortion optimized. Nearly perfect sound personalized for my ears.
This is what I've been using on my hd598s. I don't consider it final but they sounds much better to me than when they did without eq.
