Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

  1. Back To Top    #1

    Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    I've seen this mentioned a few times, where someone says that your "beating your frequency response into submission" by "over-EQ'ing" the response. I'm kind of curious what is really meant by this and why it's a "bad" thing.

    Let's say that you just installed new speakers and you are EQ'ing each speaker to a particular curve, whatever that curve may be. Why is it a bad thing to use as many filters as needed to "shape" the response of the speaker exactly how you want it? At the end of the day, I would think that you'd want to have the response of each speaker match the curve of your choice as closely as possible. Why not use as many filters as needed to accomplish that goal? Why would you NOT want to make it match your target curve as closely as possible if you have the bands to spare? Are there any "cons" of doing this?

    I mean who cares if it takes 20 PEQ filters to get the response exactly how you want it? Regardless of *why* you need to use so many filters, doesn't the ends justify the means? I mean if you can reach your goal with EQ instead of having to make physical changes, why not? Why not take advantage of the functionality offered by modern DSP's to do most of the work for you, if possible?

    I'm genuinely curious to hear peoples opinions on the matter.

    For what it's worth, I'll use as many of my 31-bands-per-channel of PEQ filters as needed to correct the response of each speaker - and it seems to work extremely well for me. Even if I use 5 filters just to make small .5dB corrections in 5 different places - why not? Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't - but what does it hurt? Just curious why it seems so "frowned" upon to use "too many" EQ filters...

    Thank you!

  2. Back To Top    #2

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by jtrosky View Post
    I've seen this mentioned a few times... I'm kind of curious what is really meant by this and why it's a "bad" thing. ....
    Seems clear enough to me:
    "beating your frequency response into submission. Meaning EQ'ing whatever the hell is in your path to match some arbitrary curve without regard for actually optimizing the system."
    https://www.diymobileaudio.com/threa...stakes.420955/



    /thread

  3. Back To Top    #3
    Refuses to grow up... mumbles's Avatar
    Real Name
    Eric
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    285
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    There have been volumes written on this and similar topics by people waaaay smarter than me, so I'm certainly not going to sum it up here. But, regarding signal manipulation, I think it has to do with "how" you EQ more than "how many times". For example, it seems to be "generally" accepted that boosting a signal via EQ is more detrimental than cutting a signal... when you introduce energy into a signal by boosting, you also introduce phase shift which becomes counter-productive to what you are trying to accomplish. There are tons of variables that come into play, speaker size, distance from the listener, early/late reflections, the volume of your interior, etc... hell, what makes one speaker sound different from another?
    I know I haven't answered your question really, but if you've heard the phrase you quoted, you've probably also heard that installation is everything. Meaning that the more work you put into the proper design of a system to begin with, the less you will have to EQ the heck out of it later on.

  4. Back To Top    #4
    Noob Jdunk54nl's Avatar
    Real Name
    Jacob
    Location
    Phoenix
    Vehicle
    2014 F150 Limited
    Posts
    1,055
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    I think because people don't understand what they can and can't fix. People just try to get it to match a curve perfectly which usually results in them trying to "fix" dips that shouldn't be bothered with.

    Like I had one at 400hz when I was 2 way. It was something that never really responded to eq. To match the curve, I would have had to either lower the curve alot or go crazy with boost. Either one of those is bad for the overall system.

    Instead, you need to actually analyze your system and figure out what is and isn't fixable, and then make it match the curve the best only on what is actually fixable. That includes setting your curve at a level that makes sense and ignoring those things that can't be fixed.

    Also, just because you matched a curve, all that means is that the levels are all worked out, there are quite a bit more parts to tuning than just frequency levels.
    2014 F150 Limited -> Kenwood DDX-9907xr -> Helix DSP.2 -> Alpine PDX-V9 -> SI M25 mki in Valicar Stuttgart Pods, Rear SB17's, Sub SI BM MKV's in MTI BOX. Alpine PDX-F6 -> SI Tm65 mkIV, SI M3 mkI in Valicar Stuttgart Pods

  5. Back To Top    #5
    BURNED OUT Hillbilly SQ's Avatar
    Real Name
    Chris
    Location
    Little Rock
    Vehicle
    2016 Ram
    Posts
    1,407
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Sucking the life out of what could be an otherwise great tune is a real problem in my opinion. I've heard systems that imaged so tight they lacked personality. This is what I consider "beating a curve into submission". It's easy to make a system sound over processed when you have a ton of power at your fingertips. I still think my best tune for overall presentation was done with a processor where I had to make every eq band count and even move stuff around when I ran out of empty bands to work with. I beat my tune into submission with my Helix and it's imaging pretty tight but it lacks that personality needed to really rock out. I'll be taking a less is more approach next time to see where that gets me.
    They might say "don't try this at home" but nothing about not trying it at your friend's house.

  6. Back To Top    #6

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
    Sorry, let me clarify my question... :-) I understand what they phrase *means*, but I'm trying to understand why it's considered a "bad" thing. Sure, in a perfect world, the physical install and speakers used would give you the perfect frequency response that you are looking for without any EQ. Obviously, we don't live in a perfect world. Before powerful DSP's were readily available for little $$$, I can understand putting tons of time, effort and money into the physical install in order to get the best response that you could.

    But nowadays, with inexpensive, powerful DSPs available that allow you to easily "shape" a response however you want via powerful parametric EQ, I'm trying to understand why, if the end freq response is the same, is it "bad" to use EQ to get to the same result that you could/would have gotten to with better physical install/drivers, etc. Basically, why NOT beat the response into submission if it ends up with a better overall freq response in the end?

    It is my understanding the that cars are a "minimum phase" environment, for the most part - and that if you EQ so that the freq response the same for all speakers, the phasing pretty much "falls in line". Again, that is my understanding - at a very basic level - which is why I asked the question. Working with the install that someone has, why NOT EQ until you get the freq response that you are looking for? What are the cons vs. not shaping the response to where you want it (via DSP)?

  7. Back To Top    #7

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Thanks for all of the replies - I appreciate it!

    THe reason I asked is because I think I have my system sounding fantastic - even though I'm using a LOT of PEQ bands to get there. I'm having a hard time not fixing an obvious "peak" or "valley" that *can* be fixed via EQ - simply because people say that you shouldn't beat the response into submission. :-) Again, just wondering "why not?" if it seems to work and you're not boosting a bunch of stuff (Overall, only a few areas of the freq response actually have a net boost - and even then, only by a dB or two.

    In the end, I'm going to stick with what works for me, but just wanted to hear what others had to say on the subject.

  8. Back To Top    #8

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    I don't have any scientific answers, and even though I have an EE degree I'm often confused when people start throwing the term phase around. I know what phase is in EE terms, but when you start talking complex musical waveforms and pseudo science I really don't always understand it. But what I've heard several times is that an EQ, being a filter, introduces phase shift and in fact some people say this is the whole point. Either way I think we can agree you are altering the source signal. And just like we (or at least home audiophiles) strive to simplify the signal path, it seems to me that the more your beat the curve into submission, the more you are altering the original "pure" signal source. (At this point I can almost hear Skizer chiming in to say that's the whole point, to make the signal at your ears match the source).

    Now if you are talking about making your coarse adjustments and then using another few bands to really fine tune things here and there by 1-2 dB I can't really call that beating it into submission, ie subtle changes throughout the curve. But when you start thworing in +4 and -6 or more adjustments sometimes next to each other, you are clearly altering the raw signal significantly. And again, EQ is not some pure signal boost/cut, as they say it introduces phase shift, which surely introduces other artifacts to the pure signal.

    I haven't brought any hard facts in here, these are just my audiophile fairy dust opinions. However, my experience has been if I go crazy on the EQ (crazy being defined more as large boosts and cuts vs how many bands I'm using) to match some arbitrary line on a screen, I've several times gone back through during listening tests and picked each band and "softened" the inputs I made based on REW. And in most cases, it ends up sounding better to me if I reduce the large inputs on the EQ.

    So my partial answer to your question is I don't think the number of bands you use is as important as how large a change you are making in any given band, or how much boost/cut you swing between adjacent frequency bands that really introduces a lot of "unnatural change" to the pure signal.

  9. Back To Top    #9

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by preston View Post
    I don't have any scientific answers, and even though I have an EE degree I'm often confused when people start throwing the term phase around. I know what phase is in EE terms, but when you start talking complex musical waveforms and pseudo science I really don't always understand it. But what I've heard several times is that an EQ, being a filter, introduces phase shift and in fact some people say this is the whole point. Either way I think we can agree you are altering the source signal. And just like we (or at least home audiophiles) strive to simplify the signal path, it seems to me that the more your beat the curve into submission, the more you are altering the original "pure" signal source. (At this point I can almost hear Skizer chiming in to say that's the whole point, to make the signal at your ears match the source).

    Now if you are talking about making your coarse adjustments and then using another few bands to really fine tune things here and there by 1-2 dB I can't really call that beating it into submission, ie subtle changes throughout the curve. But when you start thworing in +4 and -6 or more adjustments sometimes next to each other, you are clearly altering the raw signal significantly. And again, EQ is not some pure signal boost/cut, as they say it introduces phase shift, which surely introduces other artifacts to the pure signal.

    I haven't brought any hard facts in here, these are just my audiophile fairy dust opinions. However, my experience has been if I go crazy on the EQ (crazy being defined more as large boosts and cuts vs how many bands I'm using) to match some arbitrary line on a screen, I've several times gone back through during listening tests and picked each band and "softened" the inputs I made based on REW. And in most cases, it ends up sounding better to me if I reduce the large inputs on the EQ.

    So my partial answer to your question is I don't think the number of bands you use is as important as how large a change you are making in any given band, or how much boost/cut you swing between adjacent frequency bands that really introduces a lot of "unnatural change" to the pure signal.
    Which is why FIR filtering is a different beast than IIR.
    (One can achieve phase EQ along with amplitude EQ.)

    If the output matches the input signal more closely we have a metric to define quality or fidelity.

    I suppose can argue whether phase is important or not.

  10. Back To Top    #10
    Noob Jdunk54nl's Avatar
    Real Name
    Jacob
    Location
    Phoenix
    Vehicle
    2014 F150 Limited
    Posts
    1,055
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Re: Why is "beating speaker frequency response into submission" via EQ a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Holmz View Post
    I suppose can argue whether phase is important or not.
    I would like to see those arguments as to why it wouldn't be...to me, phase is super important. You can't have destructive interference happening and expect great results. If volume is equal and you have 180 out of phase, you get literally no sound.
    2014 F150 Limited -> Kenwood DDX-9907xr -> Helix DSP.2 -> Alpine PDX-V9 -> SI M25 mki in Valicar Stuttgart Pods, Rear SB17's, Sub SI BM MKV's in MTI BOX. Alpine PDX-F6 -> SI Tm65 mkIV, SI M3 mkI in Valicar Stuttgart Pods

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back To Top