2. analog
  3. 138750-81825

Using a Studio EQ for Vinyl playback

I’ve never understood the audiophile aversion to EQ..... especially having simple good tone controls on a preamp. Sadly... most tone controls really do sound bad. But unless you plan to play exclusively audiophile pressings, I feel some EQ is essential to really enjoy popular music. Since my preamp does NOT have tone controls, I have used several different studio quality EQ’s between my phono pre and main preamp. (....no, NOT graphic eqs) Having this control has never failed to increase my enjoyment of sub-par records. So why is EQUALISER such a bad word in audiophile circles??

Most studio EQs are dual channel. You have to tweak both channels separately, and it’s a bit cumbersome. There are a few that are stereo program EQs with one set of controls for both channels. I’ve recently discovered one that is working very well for me... The Vintage Audio M3D ($1300). It’s a 6 band EQ with VERY wide bell curves, and thus minimal phase shift. It has a true bypass, so it’s really out of the path when bypassed. The downside for home audio is that it runs at +4dB levels, and has balanced XLR connectors. I’ve forged ahead and use it anyway, and it’s working well for me. The noise floor is still lower than that of my phono pre (a Parasound JC3, with XLR outs) so that just means I have a ridiculous amount of headroom. I’ve made my own -10dB pad cables to convert the balanced output to RCA and it’s working great. A simple adapter will not work with the M3D.

Great pressings don’t need EQ, but older popular music pressings benefit greatly from some EQ.   Isn’t that what it’s all about? Making the music more enjoyable??
mirolab

Showing 2 responses by mirolab

mirolab OP
206 posts
 
So chakster....
I DO have an excellent system that sounds amazing with well recorded and well mastered recordings.  Sorry, but I disagree with you.  
I have many LPs that do NOT sound great, but have great music on them. (I have around 2500 LPs)  Take LPs from the 70's for example.. funk, jazz, rock, disco.... yeah i said it..... Disco.... (once in a while).   Many records were rolled off in the low end to fit more minutes of music on them.  They were not mastered for audiophile ears, nor for level of quality of audio systems we have today.   THESE records need some help, and CAN sound amazing when the low end is restored, or maybe adding a touch of HF shine.  Why should I suffer the mediocre sound of great music that I love??   
This is the purist audiophile attitude that I'd like to turn around. (respectfully, of course!)   
mirolab OP
206 posts
 
Teo_audio.....  I would agree with you on a theoretical level... if I were playing back audiophile pressings.   When I do play well mastered LPs.. or newly remastered pressings, I bypass the EQ and it sounds fantastic.  I will pose it to you again...   
I know my system is well balanced because when I play well mastered material, it sounds exactly perfect.  But then I put on a record that is clearly deficient in low end.  Should I just grin and bear it? Should I not play this music?   Why should I be deprived of the kick drum moving some air for a set of made-up ideals?   
And to Chalkster..... why should I have to pick from 6 EQ presets that have nothing whatsoever to do with the record that I am playing right now?  ..... when all that's required is +4dB at 50Hz to restore the kick and bass to where they SHOULD be.   Yes... i know what a real band sounds like, and I know that the kick and bass should move some air in the room.  If the record has been rolled off due to mass market commercial concerns, why is it an audiophile crime to use an EQ to fix this problem?  
More to discover