Thread 106296698

Digital EQ is a destructive process which involves munging the original digital audio stream, all digital editing (even if you just output the result and don't save it) is destructive. So you are losing audio quality there. Equivalent to a re-encode, worse sometimes. Just spend the extra money on proper gear or use real speakers like a real person OK?

>>106296698 (OP)
as an audio engineer that spends hours mixing and mastering music i hate eqfags with a passion

>>106296727
I just do it as an amateur for my own enjoyment with my own music and I would never want to do more munging than I absolutely have to. Let alone always munging my audio I hear as a separate stage lol. I think this is one of the big causes of phase issues too - overuse of digital-domain signal processing.

Any knowledge nigga here in this thread? I use AutoEQ profile to get harman curve frequency response on my headphones with easyeffects equalizer plugin. I import the profile but there are different modes of equalizing:

>IIR - Infinite Impulse Response filters, nonlinear minimal phase. In most cases does not add noticeable latency to output signal.

>FIR - Finite Impulse Response filters with linear phase, finite approximation of Equalizer's impulse response. Adds noticeable latency to output signal.

>FFT - Fast Fourier Transform approximation of the frequency chart, linear phase. Adds noticeable latency to output signal.

>SPM - Spectral Processor Mode of equalizer, equalizer transforms the magnitude of signal spectrum instead of applying impulse response to the signal.

I think IIR sounds best but I have no clue. I like that IIR at least keeps the impulse response even if it fucks up the phase

https://lsp-plug.in/?page=manuals§ion=para_equalizer_x32_lr

>>106296698 (OP)
>Just spend 70k
No thanks

>>106296698 (OP)
EQ'ing your headhones is too practical to pass up, especially for music production.

Also, Cubase stock EQs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
That's why you lose a b it of fidelity, /b/ro

>>106296787
>even if it fucks up the phase
Coloration.

>>106296727
Did you spend a lot of time mastering it for my specific headset running off my specific hardware in the particular environment I happen to be listening to it in?

>>106296844
>Also, IIR filters are mostly the digital representation of analog filters.
If your headphone does some low pass filtering or anything involving impedance it should have a similar effect to IIR? I think this is close to natural. Making my headphone comply to harman curve frequency response makes it sound like twice as good. Im not one of those EQ retards that just puts in some random values and calls it a day

>>106296787
>I use AutoEQ profile to get harman curve frequency response on my headphones with easyeffects equalizer plugin.
So you're looking at losing 20%+ of your audio quality so your EQ curve sounds like it's better than it is. You might as well only listen to music in a shitty car at highway speeds on the stock speakers.

>>106296840
>practical
How is it practical? Just use an analog EQ, which doesn't harm audio quality except by slightly raising the noise floor which should be below the pin-drop level in your anechoic listening chamber.

hear me out; if the default configuration isn't taking complete advantage of the power the pair holds, what's the harm?

>>106296987
i'm willing to hear audio nerds out. shit like if i'm actually doing my ears a disservice.

>>106296941
Shit in my ass I can hear the coloration - fuck
I get it now since IIR moves the peaks of the amplitudes it colors. Looks like all the filters are shit

OP is just mad that EQ lets you pirate more expensive headphones

>>106297149
>Looks like all the filters are shit
This is why people like analog effects so much, even with the non-linearity and quirks, you're just raising the noise floor a bit and not hurting the original signal (unless that's the intention).

Some software is smarter than other software, some DAWs will apply each effect and then feed the next thing, others will take into consideration a more complicated transform that preserves the signal better. Same with hardware mixers and effects units. A common trick in the old days with digital effectswas just to clock your DAC higher on a non-harmonic compared to the input signals and output that. See the old Soundstream recorders and the Denon thing they had back in the '70s when they were cranking out digitally recorded vinyl records.

>>106297209
Based
Gimme the V
I like fun

>>106296698 (OP)
i an dumb but it haz nathing to do with eq my headphones i jus got my IQ tested and it was 90

I usually only make bass louder so I can block out having to hear pajeets

>>106297209
>gain a different EQ curve
>lose 20% or more of your audio quality
Just learn to like your shitty headphones while you save up for speakers or better headphones.

>>106297209
I still haven't seen a case of someone turning ibuds or similar into a Sennheiser HD800 or Beyerdynamic DT1990.

>>106297309
Acceptable.

>>106296698 (OP)
>all digital editing
Like digital volume controls that reduce the bit depth? How noticeable is that anyway?

>>106298670
Treat every digital operation as a separate re-encode and you're not far off the mark. More advanced solutions will apply multiple transforms in one step in a 32-bit float type environment and then re-convert back to full integer values when returning. Most DAWs don't do that and ever time you send audio to or get it from a VST you're doing a destructive operation.

A chisel is damaging to marble. I still prefer to look at busts than stones.

>>106298935
Kung Tzu say: better to imagine beauty than to fuck goat.

>>106299013
Based but I'm not so sure.
t. Loazi

>>106296698 (OP)
>>106296727
Retard.

>>106296987
>>106296996
bump i'm going to fucking bed if i don't get a reply i'll just assume this thread is GAY.

EQ a track in audacity. EQ it again with the opposite filters. Subtract from the original track. Divide the by 2 since you EQd twice. I'll give you the "listened at 120dB" award if you're able to hear that difference.

>>106299213
*Divide the difference

>>106296698 (OP)
>>106296727
Brainlets.
>>106299164
This.

>>106296698 (OP)
My DJ friend hand crafted what he calls the "Perfect" EQ settings back in 2009, and to this day they have never been topped. They make every song sound 1000x's better.

>>106297209
This, got a pair of beats studio buds that sounded like shit. Used autoeq and they sounded much better

>>106296941
>loss of audio quality
is this "loss of audio quality" in the room with us right now?

>>106299601
>each eq would only work best in one pair of iem/headphones

I just bought a pair of sennheisers and a moondrop dawn pro mini dac and that's all i use. No EQ whatsoever, only download flac, never paid for a music track in my life.

It's hard being this fucking comfy.

>>106296698 (OP)
Every headphone requires EQ. Every speaker requires EQ. Real speakers come with everything you need to EQ them, headphone retards didn't get the memo yet.

for me it's too autistic, I can't bother spending so much time trying to find the good EQ for my particular set of headphones
Also there's some presets out there and everyone's telling me "sure it'll sound like shit but you have to spend some time to adapt" and to me that sounds like bullshit

>>106302242
You don't find them, you make them.
>sure it'll sound like shit but you have to spend some time to adapt" and to me that sounds like bullshit
It is bullshit. People say the same thing about new headphones and it's bullshit in this case too. You just EQ until it sounds good.

>>106296727
EQ is necessary for headphones which lack the necessary low and top end extension.

>>106296698 (OP)
How does this make you feel, OP?

>>106296698 (OP)
Wait to you hear about how destructive lossy audio compression is. EQ is not even remotely as destructive as lossy audio, which is the default listening experience for most people.

>>106296698 (OP)
You are wrong. All headphones BENEFIT from EQ. You cannot back up your claims with credible data.
>>106296941
You are wrong. You cannot back up your claims with credible data.

>>106303337
damn look at that ass...

>>106302191
>Every headphone requires EQ. Every speaker requires EQ.
That's the dumbest thing anybody's ever said on 4chan, by far.

>>106303337
>All headphones BENEFIT from EQ.
Sure. Analog EQ. Digital is destructive to sound quality.

>You are wrong. You cannot back up your claims with credible data.
Kek, it appears the AI Satania-bot can't understand how digital audio works. You poor thing you must be running on a very out of date backend.

>>106303898
OP post is infinitely dumber.
>>106303913
Analog EQ raises the noise floor by 6dB. Digital EQ does nothing.

>>106304224
>Analog EQ raises the noise floor by 6dB.
You're pulling numbers out of your ass now, jeet.
>Digital EQ does nothing.
No, it destroys your sound quality.

>>106296698 (OP)
>Just spend the extra money
No

>>106304278
OK, then degrade your audio with digital EQ. Your call.

>>106304248
You don't know how digital audio works. You don't know how EQ works. Don't reply to me until you learn how 16 bit audio is able to store signals quieter than -96dB.

>>106304302
*manaical laughter*

>>106304326
>You don't know how digital audio works. You don't know how EQ works.
Yes, I do. YOU don't know. You've just given one of the most generic, chatbot-like replies in the history of 4chan. Absolute retarded jeet tier stuff here.

>>106304373
Read a book nigger.

>>106304429
Already did, it's why I made the thread, jeet.

>>106304436
If you actually read a book you'd be EQing everything, nigger.

>>106304471
Wrong, people who read books don't EQ everything, especially not in the digital domain.

Dumb jeet or jeet-programmed chatbot lol.

>>106304490
Read a book, nigger

The best speakers in the world EQ in the digital domain. But of course some nigger knows better.

>>106304538
I already did, now your jeety chatbot programming is looping.

>digital EQ destroys audio quality
>no, I won't explain how while providing credible data sources to back my claim up