Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: By-passing pre and eq

  1. #1
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,696

    By-passing pre and eq

    Hi All

    Just a short note about something I tried today. It's not often that I go through the hastle of reconfiguring my system due to the weight of the cabs yada yada.

    Today I connected the Benchmark Dac 1 balanced outputs directly into the HRX crossover.

    How often do you read "the less electronics the better". This was the first time I have heard my Westlakes sound good without EQ and an analysis of the room. It's enough to make one think twice thats for sure.

    Food for thought.

    Ken

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    Hi Ken,

    I think I suggested that as a side alternative in your Dac 1 discussion thread.( I am not suggesting I have a caveat on that idea..I am Not an audiophile..muhhahaha)

    Your not the first and you certainly won't be the last to make this observation.

    Reminds me of the good old days of passive preamps and transformer attenuator preamps that have re surfaced recently...very expensive silver windings.

    What (active gain stage) pre amp are you using at the moment? What is the Eq at the moment?

    I have never used an equaliser at home on my shabby 43XX hacks but the minimalise theory seems to work for me despite the jaggered response that so many spend so much time on smoothing with their Clio's and Ultracurves.

    I know I would never have thought it was better until the day I tried it. As I recall I had a Luxman Brid CD player (valve buffers) and it had a variable output so I bypassed the preamp (a Phase Linear 3300 Series 11 at the time) direct into my Aleph 3.

    Marvellous improvement and you are right you tend forget the mind set of how can I make it better...

    If you can configure the digital output of the Dac 1 to go into the DEQX it might also prove interesting at some point.

    Ian

  3. #3
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
    Hi Ken,

    I think I suggested that as a side alternative in your Dac 1 discussion thread.
    Ian
    You certainly did suggest it. I meant to try it much sooner but as stated, the damned speaker cabs and rack cabs are well over 500 lbs each and a bear to move. Unfortuantely they require moving to get at the inputs and outputs. Something to be said for patchbays.

    I am currently have a choice of my Perreaux SM6 or the Tad Signature 150. The EQ is the BSS 960.

    Ken

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    Well if your using cds/dvds as a source only perhaps a preamp (control centre) is reduntant.

    The thing to know however is what is the default volume out of the player after trun off/on the dac 1

    Ian

  5. #5
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,170
    This was the first time I have heard my Westlakes sound good without EQ and an analysis of the room. It's enough to make one think twice thats for sure.

    Food for thought.

    Hello Ken

    How much EQ do you use on them???

    Rob

  6. #6
    Tom Loizeaux
    Guest
    Ken,
    I've been using a Crown PSL-2 preamp that has a toggle switch to bypass the EQ section. I run my system without any EQ from the preamp and don't use the low end boost or cut either. I run the gain as the only "adjustment" in the signal...and I think I run it not much above unity gain.
    I fatten or thin my 4343s by making very slight adjustments in the low or high drive levels of my bi-amp setup.
    Seems to work well.

    Tom

  7. #7
    Senior Member JBLnsince1959's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    KC - land of ahhhhs
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Pachkowsky
    Don't get me wrong, it sounds great after eq'ing but this little experiment proves the point that every active piece of equipment is in effect another preamp with its own set of characteristics/anomalies.

    In short it seems to reinforce the straight wire theory.

    Ken
    So true..so true...

    However, you may have gotten lucky...sometimes it can sound worst..or should I say LESS dynamic....it depends on how well the equipment works together...something about impedance and load ...

    Some one was nice enough to write about it and I printed it..I'll look around for it ( however I'm in my busy season so it may take weeks to go thru all my papers if I don't find it quickly...pray the lady didn't throw it out)

    Glad it's working for you, anything we can do to make it sound better is fair game....

    the variable output on my MAC isn't matching up well with my amps and that's a bummer. Sound is completely "washed out" and "flat", I've thought of replacing it( variable output) with a better one..

    take care

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886
    With my 4345's, I have found the straightwire approach to be very rewarding. I have to assume that any loss of exact frquency balance is offset by the added clarity, which I personally seem to find more rewarding. I like the overall "feel" better. I have worked hard finding electronics with a minimal footprint.

    Widget was kind enough to sell me a derelict PS Audio 4.6 Preamp. Being broken, it only functions in straightwire mode. As a source switch and a volume control it is perfect, all I needed. It is not even plugged in. I only use a preamp for my mc phono setup, and I have a little dedicated box for that, which is also minimalist in its own right (Dynavector P-75, which has the best circuits from the big buck PHA-200. It has a unique current amp that doesn't load the cartridge, bypassing yet another obstruction in the signal path. It's the size of a cigarette pack!). The Grommes PHI-26 tube amp is also simple, a perfectly built single-ended Alan Kimmel circuit, very unobtrusive. The giant 6290 adds color, I'm sure, but from 290hz down where it works for me I can't notice it.

    If I could afford a better biamp crossover unit than the 5235, clarity would be mine.

    Maybe the best thing about these pieces - I think they are analog all the way! Keep those damn chips out of my rig! Want to degrade an analog signal? Digitize it! Signal processing my ass. I say if you don't like the room acoustics, move the furniture around. Move the couch. Hang a tapestry. Don't introduce yet more electronics to deal with it.

    Clark
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  9. #9
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,696

    The Deqx should be inetersting

    As a couple of you are aware, I just purchased a Deqx 2.6 from a fellow forumite. Widget has been praising its virtues for the last couple of years and I am chomping at the bit to try it out. It has the potencial to replace not only my preamp but eq, dac1 and even the crossover, by adding a second deqx down the road.

    It will be here in the next week and I will keep you all posted on my impressions. Of course I will do the testing as time permits.

    Ken

  10. #10
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,886

    Self Moderation

    In re-reading my post above (#9), I'm sure I came on too strong. I am just trying to say that I think Ken does have something there, it seems to work out very well for me, and it is nice to see recognition that there is more than one way to audio nirvana. I didn't mean to denigrate any other approaches. Let's just say I am not a fan of ruler flat frequency response being nearly as important as other qualities of musical sound reproduction, for instance naturalness of tone quality. I feel flat response is seldom or never as pleasing as other schemes, at least while listening to music for pleasure. Which is what I do, not being an audio professional.

    Am I prejudiced toward analog signal chains and their results? You bet! Do I hold "less is more" in audio electronics as an article of faith? Until converted to another approach by my personal experience, yes. If I had time and money, I would surely experiment with this idea Ian's posts turned me on to:http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=42259&perpage=10&highlight =&pagenumber=1
    Looks great on paper, but what would it sound like driving a big monitor's biamped top?

    In the end, when a beautiful, simple audio chain plays, it sounds sweet. Change and/or add elements and the sound is different. But if it is still sweet, if you like the way your rig sounds, you can't lose! Whatever works is good...

    Clark in Peoria
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  11. #11
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47
    In re-reading my post above (#9), I'm sure I came on too strong.
    Clark in Peoria
    I think your opinion is logical and probably valid.

    Ken

  12. #12
    Senior Seņor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    6,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47
    Let's just say I am not a fan of ruler flat frequency response being nearly as important as other qualities of musical sound reproduction, for instance naturalness of tone quality. I feel flat response is seldom or never as pleasing as other schemes, at least while listening to music for pleasure. Which is what I do, not being an audio professional.
    Cool, and as Ken put, a very valid viewpoint.

    I too had a preference for a certain EQ - it was not "flat" and was bumped here, and notched there (not on any EQ, but in the response curve). Over the past 30yrs doing live sound I did best I could, by ear. The recent 10yrs have provided affordable tools to measure the acoustic response of the room. Being quizzical, I decided to embark on trying to understanding this information - and even more, to "go flat" in my home system for a long enough period and see if I can adjust my hearing preference. That is, unlearn my preference for my personal EQ. I succeeded.

    I've found that flat is the best opportunity to recover the tonality and "sound" originally intended, be it live or recorded. Exactly what you describe, Clark. Why should the speaker cabinet and room characteristics be allowed to wreak random acoustic havoc over what the artists intend(ed)? As an example, I've found that LF is a band of frequent abuse - "if it thumps you it is good" - and tonality is so often lacking (but can be "recovered" but some focussed and subtle EQ'ing). I strive to get every string on the bass to have it's acapella (and preamp) character. Too many bass players end-up being merely an extension of the kick drum - shame. This is not necessary if you get the response as flat ("honest" I call it) as possible, removing room resonance as-is-possible.

    Flat saves greatly in required amp power - amps work hard to sustain EQ humps. Preamps can clip in the humped bands, which leads to subtle distortion - you many not see the outputs clipping, but there is clipping upstream in the signal path.

    If you have the means to make quality measurement and adjustment, give flat a trial for a month. It takes the ears a while to re-groove. You might find the results more overall pleasing, discover subtle tonality you might have been masking and the overall sound less tiring. Just my 2¢

    But, this is an unending point of discussion...
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  13. #13
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,170
    Flat response??

    Now there's a topic for discussion if ever there was one. I have always been in the "Flat Response" camp. Not to the +/_ 1 extremes just reasonably flat so if you are using EQ you don't go to far with it. I don't get too upset if the curve has a wobble here of there, I think matching the stereo pair is really just as important and goes a long way to stabilize the imaging at the listeners seat as well. It also ensures they each are the same tonally so pans don't sound odd or certain notes don't pull to one side from irregularities between the pair. Even if it's not smooth as long as the response contours match between the stereo pair your on the right road. I like it flat from say 100Hz up to say 10K. I like a bit of boost below 40Hz and some roll off above 10K.

    Rob

  14. #14
    Senior Seņor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    6,142
    Ha! This thread will now never die...

    I thought of another point: in-addition to all the other attributes of flat EQ, the most important is that it is non-personal. This is particularly important in live applications - it will please almost everybody all of the time, and will be least tiring. Pay attention to the A-weighted SPL curve and beware of humping that part of the curve...

    Speaker manufacturers go to great lengths to produce a flat response. It only makes sense that we users work on the acoustic response to try and achieve that.
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  15. #15
    Senior Member alskinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    LA (Lower Alabama)
    Posts
    184

    Good Point Bo

    When tailoring the sound for live audiences, I agree that most people will be pleased with the sound of a flat response. On the other hand when designing a system for a paticular person, other factors such as hearing losses come in to play. Most of us (especially us older folks) don't have ruler flat hearing. Also, most recorinding companies don't record to a ruler flat standard. As far as I know the only way to insure speaker response is truly flat is to sweep the entire audio frequency spectrum using a standardized tone generator insuring a flat response in all drivers of the speaker system. Even doing this may not be the best sounding system depending on the anamolies of the drivers.


    AL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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