Anyone use equalizers?

[Samuel T Cogley]

35 minutes ago, mordante said:

 

No one in pro audio uses Behringer.

 

First of all, I'm not elevating Behringer gear is an icon of a pro audio environment.

 

But it bears noting that so called "pro audio" environments (with the exception of the few remaining top shelf recording and mastering facilities) are becoming a more and more grey area.  Lots of home studios these days.

 

I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% (probably a lot more) of the material at Bandcamp passed through Behringer gear before it got to its final, delivered form.  Someone who generates income as a musician is, by definition, a professional.

 

Quote

I have seen riders that said a band will not play if Behringer gear is used.

 

Sure.  Doesn't mean lots and lots of professional bands don't play through Behringer gear.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Or even more to the point, "transparent, high resolution gear will not make bad recordings into good recordings".

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What a fully capable setup does is add nothing audible to the recording

 

Yup.  A "wire with gain".  The Holy Grail.

 

But some explicitly want enhanced euphonics, which is arguably not fidelity, but "more fun".

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

... but nothing for the real audiophile. If I'd apply such a thing (which some times coincidentally happens) then the wow factor soon turns into a getting tired of it. Not physically but the "always sounding the same" is what you get fed up with.

 

Euphonic colorations from a source (DAC in your case?) are one thing, euphonic colorations downstream are additive, and not always harmonious.  And it's the additive euphonic colorations that are the domain of high end analog interconnects.  They really can and do change the sound depending on the gear on each end of the cable.

 

While I'm quite aware of the almost universal raves regarding your products, I'm probably not in your target demographic.  My approach to audio is much more utilitarian.  Accuracy is my "wow factor".  I totally get this makes me an outlier.

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

I'm sure that you also realize that a change of sound that follows changing the gear on one or both ends of the cable may be a desirable attribute, unless that gear all sounds the same. It''s called transparency.

 

I was really thinking of boutique gear with attributes like non-standard input impedance on the line-ins ("standard" is around 10k ohms) or sources with unusual output impedance (some tube-based phono preamps come to mind).  In my experience gear like that (often this means tubes) predictably add euphonic colorations.  Is it undesirable?  To me, yes, but I don't begrudge those who seek euphonics in their setups.  I understand the colloquial use of the word "transparency" in this context.  But that's not what I would call it.

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 10/26/2017 at 6:21 PM, sandyk said:

I haven't seen any references to a "standard" input impedance of around 10kohms

 

Have a look here:

 

Quote

A typical line out connection has an output impedance from 100 to 600 Ω, with lower values being more common in newer equipment. Line inputs present a much higher impedance, typically 10 kΩ or more

 

I put quotes around "standard".  I should have used "typical".

 

With boutique tube gear, my experience is that both of these values vary wildly.  With solid state, not so much.

 

It is also my experience that boutique analog interconnects leverage these exotic output and input impedances and do indeed change the character of the sound much more than with gear that is closer to the values outlined above.

 

This isn't audiophile heresy.  Or at least, it's not meant to be.

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 10/26/2017 at 4:05 PM, Allan F said:

 

I wasn't using the term "transparency" in a colloquial sense, but rather in the generally accepted audiophile technical sense, i.e. clearly revealing the inherent sound characteristics of the gear. I understand that is not what you were referring to. My point was simply that truly transparent interconnects will change the sound, reflecting changes in the sound of the connected gear.

 

What you're calling "generally accepted audiophile technical sense", I'm calling colloquial.  Unpacking the "generally accepted" bit a little, you mean, "believed by real audiophiles".

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Are you trying to act out your membership description?

 

More or less. 

 

But I think you made my point.