What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.184 Comments
- clempka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+219Like the article states, there's no such thing as a perfect EQ, which is why there are so many presets. It all depends on what kind of music you're listening to, what kind of speakers you have, etc. Besides, it's all subjective anyway. Do what you think sounds good to you, because not all EQ's are created equally.
- dj_sea2005, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47I second davdav.
in music studios, songs are created, mixed, and mastered on speakers that give a flat frequency response (non of that "super bass boost" rubbish you get on hi-fi's)
this means that if you listen to a track on a system with a flat frequency response, you will effectively be listening to the track the way the artist/audio engineer intended it to sound like. (assuming you have the right speaker/audio monitor set-up)
of course, EQ's are a personal preference. and personally, i prefer to listen to my music the way the pros wanted it to be listened to.
/music technology student - davdav, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43No, you really do want a flat frequency response. Stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about. No reason to digg seattle down.
- Terc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39Although you're right, you obviously didn't even read the article. It actually states what you just said, and explains why this settings is better anyway. Now, I'm not saying this equalizer setting is news... but please read the article before commenting.
- seattle98104, on 10/12/2007, -42/+65the perfect eq is flat. the perfect speakers have flat response.
if you don't have flat response speakers (avg. joe cannot afford these nor do most computer geeks own them), than the perfect eq is the eq that gives you the flatest response accross the spectrum on those specific speakers.
marked as innacurate. - brfuk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31Marked as innacurate. I'm not an audiophile. But I do produce a fair amount of electronic music (dance mainly) and the very idea of 'perfect EQ settings' is just plain wrong.
All your doing is making it louder and assuming it's better somehow. You should all carefully use the EQ to compensate for failings in your own listening environment/equipment. And yes as others have said here, cutting frequences is better than boosting. Because boosting will generate distortion/digital clipping. - esoteric0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21needs more cowbell.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Wow, I didn't realise Digg was so full of elitist dicks!
Listen know-it-alls, if someone tries this and it sounds better, who the hell are you to tell them it doesn't or shouldn't? If it doesn't sound better, they can go back to what they had. We get the idea - it should be flat, it depends on the setup, blah blah blah blah. Get off your high horses and go away.
To the people simply stating facts, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people marking as innaccurate because they're oh-so-right-always. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13As someone who works in the field, I have to say, if I could get speakers everywhere that had perfectly flat responses, I'd get them and use them, but realistically, this will never happen, and they really are prohibitively expensive. I don't really call myself an audiophile, but I definitely do have an ear for sound, and I do prefer more flat speakers when and where I can get them.
That being said, my computer, to this day, is still connected to a pair of crumby Logitech speakers picked up from Walmart. For day-to-day, I simply don't care that much about the quality. While it is more enjoyable at a higher quality, the law of diminishing returns really strikes hard here. The more money I dump into better sounding equipment, the less money I could spend working on other things in my life, and even as music and sound is up there in priorities, there are other things that rank even higher.
I expect I'm a lot like the masses in this effect; we would love to have higher quality, but simply can't afford it in most cases. Equalizers allow you to get closer to flat responses by adjusting the output from your speakers to make it more accurate, of course, they're rarely, if ever, used to actually do this ("I just adjust it until I think it sounds better", which of course most of the time makes it sound /worse/ than the original, especially if you move up to better speakers).
As for this particular setting, I don't really care for it, and I don't know if it's because I'm so used to the flat EQ setting from iTunes, or if it's because the mids are so wispy and tinny. It might just not be well suited for electronic music. It might be that my speakers are actually better at reproducing the real sound and this EQ setting simply exaggerates the features way beyond reasonable. - lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Flat is not bad. You should never even _need_ to add an EQ off a fully mastered track.
- dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22you are correct, sir!
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Marked inaccurate. Just looking at those settings makes me cringe. You're supposed to use EQ to compensate for your speakers/soundsystem and your listening space. And you're supposed to use EQ to *cut* frequences rather than boost them. The fact that he's boosting the 8kHz range *11db* boggles my mind. An EQ curve like this is going to cause major clipping on most sound cards.
But hey, I'm contradicting an article in the Apple section so let the burying commence. :| - mongrel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Thanks ThinkBox, I hadn't pirated anything in like 14 hours; I was getting withdrawn...
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The perfect setting would be flat with flat-response speakers. This isn't really possible (or at least, not possible without being exorbitantly expensive), therefore the next best thing is a create a custom EQ for your setup. Use a constant amplitude tone generator and a flat sound meter to get as close to a flat response as possible. The extra processing of the EQ will degrade the sound ever so slightly, so you have a choice between better quality with slight distortion, or slightly worse quality with less distortion. Take your pick.
- kingfoot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16its not perfect however does make the speakers sound..."fuller" and is nice for someone who doesnt know what every part does in the EQ.
- jerr0328, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Obviously you didn't read it because the article already stated there is no "perfect" EQ, but it's a very good one nonetheless. Oh, and don't say "why was this story dugg" because it makes you sound like a retard, the answer is here: http://digg.com/about
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Agree, best EQ is its absence.
- mike667, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10sounds good to me, i never even thought about itunes sounding bad. but now that I have done this... what an improvement.
- timf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If there was a perfect setting why would there be the need of an equalizer in the first place.
It's like adding seasoning to the "perfect" tasting meal. - mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I like acoustic best, for iTunes. This preset just made everything louder, and in some cases made the base and acousitcs heavily distorted.
Who sells flat response speakers? What would be reasonably priced pair? - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The joke's on you. Nobody that listens to vinyl would ever say that.
- daeyeth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6IMO, these EQ settings sound great. There is a significant difference using these settings that's immediately noticeable. I use headphones and with these settings it seems almost as if it's a live rendition of the song. Maybe that's an exageration but I can definitely hear that the sounds are MUCH more crisp.
- aaryn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I know, that's two years ago, now this setting doesn't sound the same anymore right? Or were you just bitching for the sake of bitching? That's what I thought, we are on the Internet indeed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6We've established already that it's not for everything, but let me just say that it sounds great on my cheap macbook speakers and gives them a depth that they didn't have before. Recomended for laptop users.
- h4lofourt33n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4While this may sound good, it is never the "perfect:, but there is no reason to mark this as innacurate.
- mlerner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with everyone here and there is no perfect or magic EQ settings but so far this one sounds quite good. If you really don't like this EQ, why not play around and create your own then post it!
- Avengelist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The only time I've seen speakers ablaze with anything was when I saw a subwoofer in a club short out and catch fire...
- .mark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not going to get too hung up, or offended, by someone suggesting "perfect" settings. I have played quite a bit in the past with my iTunes settings and never really had too much luck finding anything I'd dare consider "perfect". However, I must say, I like these settings. They sound really nice on my MacBook Pro speakers and I don't even have to have the volume cranked to the max.
- Soulscribe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5** (edit) looks like Unimaxium beat me to it
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that this setting is on average approximately 8 db louder than the flat setting. To compare this setting to the flat setting, one should pull the preamp slider down about 8 db to compensate for all the boosting. All the reports of a clearer, better sound can be attributed to the fact that you are listening to the music louder . . . of course it is going to be clearer. - calbff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The title of this post is really a shame, because this really is a nice EQ setting. It's a bit too wide with slightly corny mids for me to call "perfect", but it still sounds very nice and is worth saving as a preset.
- groceryheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@rnmrnmrnm As a semi-professional fiddle with EQ slider-er I know from experience that the setting has as much if not more to do with the EQ than the speakers. This is one reason why there is usually such a long wait before a concert: they have to adjust the EQ based on the crowd. All the bodies effect the sound acoustics of the room, people usually reflect less sound than the floor.
Most venues don't actually have very good quality speakers. People are more interested in loud at a concert than quality. I have a very nice setup on my computer. Each of my relatively low wattage speakers cost 150$. I have a sound quality that people who never try to build their own speakers never dream of.
I use EQ settings. Why? because different kinds of music behave differently at different volumes. Unless you are in a perfectly sound insulated room with perfect speakers, messing with the settings is fun and if you know what you are doing you'll get some improvement in quality.
Quick tip for newbies: try to make every instrument equally clear and make small adjustments. This EQ sucks and basically just makes everything louder and boosts the high and low ends. The midrange is usually the place where things become the most muddled. Making the ends louder just distorts everything and makes a bleeding mess. - MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a good balance; I tried it my with the EQ for my X-Fi.
I still prefer my preset though: +7.6, +7.6, -5.0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, +8.1 with pre-amp at -2.5. I get a good balance of base and treble w/out the buzzing noise that's present on old songs.
I use crappy headphones btw. - sendmesomejunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wasn't here 2 years ago. I like the article.
- borb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't understand why people are reporting this post as inaccurate. Obviously this being the 'perfect' EQ is very opinion-based. But you either digg it, or you don't. Either way, this is a link to an article about a custom EQ...it isn't inaccurate, and it actually is the name of the article...
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6That worked a lot better than I expected, sounds like I'm listening to vinyl. :-D
- aluminumpork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This article may be innacurate, and I completely realize that there's no such thing as a "Perfect EQ", but this EQ setting sure did make my tiny Fujitsu S2210 speakers sounds great!
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If you read the article, it says itself that 'perfect' is subjective. Dugg you down for not RTFA.
- Unimaxium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The problem with that EQ is that it increases the overall volume of what you're listening to, which will almost always sound better than the same EQ minus a few dB. I'd venture to guess that the person who submitted the story most likely thought it sounded better because it's a better curve, when in reality it was just the volume boost that made the most difference. Try subtracting a few dB with the leftmost slider and then comparing it to the flat eq. It may still sound better, but I bet the difference will be a lot less.
- lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Inexperienced users (like myself in middle school) often turn the "bass" and "treble" almost all the way up, because the more treble, the less "muddy" it sounds, and the inexperienced sound user wants to make it as "unmuddy" as possible (oh and rumbly bass is fun for them too, I guess)
However, the only equalization that would make a speaker system make the sounds as close to the original (and as close to the masterer's intent) as possible is one of the inverse of the speaker's frequency response graph (which is generally impossible as speaker responses are printed at 90 dB, and EQing at such levels generates clipping).
THAT BEING SAID -- most laptop speakers, due to their muffled positions, inefficient engineering, and small size, generate a WHOLE lot of the MID-range. So a smiley-faced EQ (like mentioned in the article) is more tasteful on laptop speakers, although a cut in the midrange would sound best.
Just buy M-Audio speakers, k? - nicku, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8clempka is right, this is inaccurate. EQ usage should vary based on speakers and room setting. There is no perfect default EQ.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7He is boosting frequencies like hell and then, words of wisdom: "skip the preamp section" HAHA I almost fell off my chair. The results are as predicted: TOO DISTORTED! if he needs this EQ and he can't hear the distortion, the music he listens too is VERY BADLY MASTERED and his system is cheaper my laptop speakers. Marked as so-innacurate-it's-not-even-funny
- vistic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The article says to ignore the Preamp level... but if you're like me and set your Mac outpout volume to the maximum... you might notice distortion like I did.
So lower the Preamp a few dB until the distortion goes away. - leeg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"and I have already tweaked my EQ for my Audigy Card."
Dude you should use only one EQ! Set one Flat and set the other to your specifications. Your 2 EQ's are fighting each other, with the end result of distortion. It will sound better! - aaryn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cool, thanks for the tip
- lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6thinkbox, all that stupid program does is a live hard limit and Smiley-faced EQ, which just makes your music sound like crap on the radio.
the best sounds are those with DYNAMIC RANGE and FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE, which this program negates. - fatcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6the trebble in this is a tad high for my macbook speakers but it sounded good on my older sound system
- bsummersett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are so many variables going into what sounds 'good' on a given setup that saying one is "perfect" is rediculous.
He's basically replicated the 'smile' EQ which is popular for a lot of rap and bass-heavy genres. This isn't anything different than what DJs have been doing for 40 years. - tim04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have you even tried "Vocal Booster"? It's nothing like "Perfect" technically or even sound wise.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Even better, what EQ setting will get this constant whining sound off Digg? :^)
- RealityMonster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dugg this story because in the comments someone does the math and comes up with a 'negative' setting that's basically equal, but reduces all the settings. You make up for the lack of loudness with some extra volume. It comes out much less harsh and sounds quite good.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 176 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is