Help my EQ swing!
December 3, 2008 1:39 PM Subscribe
What iTunes equalizer settings will best compliment swing dance music? I listen to a lot of swing dance music, which includes older R&B/soul as well as contemporary hiphop and some pop. I know that no one equalizer setting will be perfect for such a diversity of styles and that the best test for an EQ setting is actually listening to music, but I'd like some suggestions on where to start for some general settings.
If it is helpful, some of the more common artists I listen to include Al Green, Aretha Franklin, B.B. King, Black Eyed Peas, Brother Yusef, Craig David, Lou Rawls, Maroon 5, Mary J. Blige, Michael Jackson, Ne-Yo, Robin Thicke, and Solomon Burke.
Also, explanations for why bringing out particular bands (or cutting others) makes these kinds of music sound better would be appreciated.
If it is helpful, some of the more common artists I listen to include Al Green, Aretha Franklin, B.B. King, Black Eyed Peas, Brother Yusef, Craig David, Lou Rawls, Maroon 5, Mary J. Blige, Michael Jackson, Ne-Yo, Robin Thicke, and Solomon Burke.
Also, explanations for why bringing out particular bands (or cutting others) makes these kinds of music sound better would be appreciated.
An audiophile would tell you that any equalizer setting is a distortion of the music as recorded. And it is. You'll get better sound quality if you turn off the equalizer.
That said, do a Google search for "perfect iTunes equalizer setting" or take a look at this macosxhints.com post. The comments are also helpful, particularly those explaining subtractive filtering.
posted by paulg at 2:03 PM on December 3, 2008
That said, do a Google search for "perfect iTunes equalizer setting" or take a look at this macosxhints.com post. The comments are also helpful, particularly those explaining subtractive filtering.
posted by paulg at 2:03 PM on December 3, 2008
You'll probably notice an apparent increase in quality of your music if you apply a standard "loudness curve" - A bell curve with raised lows, raised highs, and a smooth line through the midrange. ITunes presets "Rock" and "Loudness" are basically this.
But I agree with the previous posters:
1. The only real reason to use EQ is to compensate for problems in your speakers, or in your room. Buying better speakers would be a much bigger improvement than changing EQ.
2. While it might sound better at first, any EQ setting is distorting the music, and your ears will get used to that distortion and find it doesn't do any good after a day or two.
3. You're listening to a wide variety of music and no one EQ setting is going to be an improvement for all of the songs.
4. The ITunes equalizer is terrible and the best possible setting is "Off".
Also, explanations for why bringing out particular bands (or cutting others) makes these kinds of music sound better would be appreciated.
I don't know why EQ's have had settings like "Rock" and "Pop" for years, but I think it's 99% marketing and I've never noticed particular settings being better for particular styles of music. On those occasions where I've used EQ, once I find a setting that works well for one style, it generally sounds good for the others.
posted by mmoncur at 2:32 PM on December 3, 2008 [1 favorite]
But I agree with the previous posters:
1. The only real reason to use EQ is to compensate for problems in your speakers, or in your room. Buying better speakers would be a much bigger improvement than changing EQ.
2. While it might sound better at first, any EQ setting is distorting the music, and your ears will get used to that distortion and find it doesn't do any good after a day or two.
3. You're listening to a wide variety of music and no one EQ setting is going to be an improvement for all of the songs.
4. The ITunes equalizer is terrible and the best possible setting is "Off".
Also, explanations for why bringing out particular bands (or cutting others) makes these kinds of music sound better would be appreciated.
I don't know why EQ's have had settings like "Rock" and "Pop" for years, but I think it's 99% marketing and I've never noticed particular settings being better for particular styles of music. On those occasions where I've used EQ, once I find a setting that works well for one style, it generally sounds good for the others.
posted by mmoncur at 2:32 PM on December 3, 2008 [1 favorite]
Thanks for asking this question
Only recently bought an iPod and I think its default settings are actually quite nice.
But maybe a little biased towards more vocal based music. It does a good job of slightly dampening the background music and pulling forward the vocals to the point where you can clearly hear all the little nuances and "flaws".
Prior to the iPod I mainly listened to music in my car (pretty bad sound system). Once in a while I'd be in someone else's car or house (with a better sound system) and I'll hear things I never heard before... like little counter melodies or cowbells. My reaction would be one of surprise and delight.
When I first listened to my iPod I actually cried. It was that clear and that beautiful. (I'll admit that I'm a crier--EVERY episode of extreme makeover ome edition!)
"This is what the song is supposed to sound like!"
I say good speakers and good quality music files (if you aren't playing directly off the CD) help signicantly.
I'm curious to hear what other people say... 'cause I'm more than willing to change a few settings to make myself cry harder. =)
posted by simplethings at 4:10 PM on December 3, 2008
Only recently bought an iPod and I think its default settings are actually quite nice.
But maybe a little biased towards more vocal based music. It does a good job of slightly dampening the background music and pulling forward the vocals to the point where you can clearly hear all the little nuances and "flaws".
Prior to the iPod I mainly listened to music in my car (pretty bad sound system). Once in a while I'd be in someone else's car or house (with a better sound system) and I'll hear things I never heard before... like little counter melodies or cowbells. My reaction would be one of surprise and delight.
When I first listened to my iPod I actually cried. It was that clear and that beautiful. (I'll admit that I'm a crier--EVERY episode of extreme makeover ome edition!)
"This is what the song is supposed to sound like!"
I say good speakers and good quality music files (if you aren't playing directly off the CD) help signicantly.
I'm curious to hear what other people say... 'cause I'm more than willing to change a few settings to make myself cry harder. =)
posted by simplethings at 4:10 PM on December 3, 2008
An audiophile would tell you that any equalizer setting is a distortion of the music as recorded. And it is. You'll get better sound quality if you turn off the equalizer.
But this audiophile would say that you use an equalizer to correct for the variances in your system. That's what their intent is (or was, anyway), to correct your sound system. But to do true equalization, you'd need to feed white noise into the speakers, and then get a microphone with known response curves, and then feed that signal back into your oscilliscope. Adjust the equalizer settings until the curve equals the microphone's.
(If you've been to a live show, you'll see the giant equalizer they use to correct for feedback and the room. Its amazing to see a sound person work- the band starts up and the microphones feed back, your ears feel like they are vibrating and it sounds like hot mess. He tweaks a few levels and suddenly the music shines through.)
(In my car, for example, the lower spectrum resonates with the car and gets "boomy". So I cut the lower end down. The higher end doesn't cut through the road noise very well, so I boost that up.)
Though I do agree- I generally leave them off. Not sure if it's still true, but I remember that the WinAmp equalizer would introduce noise, even with the levels flat.
If it was me, I wouldn't introduce any of the "enhancements" like echo or expanded stereo or "rock mode" or anything like that. I would just do like they do on the radio- apply some normalizing or (forget the correct term) automatic gain control, so that the volume of the different tracks isn't jarring. Then, maybe a little light compression. It cuts down on the dynamics, but for general listening, this is usually more pleasing.
But the reality is, you are the listener. Choose what you like. Just don't overdrive your speakers.
posted by gjc at 5:02 PM on December 3, 2008
But this audiophile would say that you use an equalizer to correct for the variances in your system. That's what their intent is (or was, anyway), to correct your sound system. But to do true equalization, you'd need to feed white noise into the speakers, and then get a microphone with known response curves, and then feed that signal back into your oscilliscope. Adjust the equalizer settings until the curve equals the microphone's.
(If you've been to a live show, you'll see the giant equalizer they use to correct for feedback and the room. Its amazing to see a sound person work- the band starts up and the microphones feed back, your ears feel like they are vibrating and it sounds like hot mess. He tweaks a few levels and suddenly the music shines through.)
(In my car, for example, the lower spectrum resonates with the car and gets "boomy". So I cut the lower end down. The higher end doesn't cut through the road noise very well, so I boost that up.)
Though I do agree- I generally leave them off. Not sure if it's still true, but I remember that the WinAmp equalizer would introduce noise, even with the levels flat.
If it was me, I wouldn't introduce any of the "enhancements" like echo or expanded stereo or "rock mode" or anything like that. I would just do like they do on the radio- apply some normalizing or (forget the correct term) automatic gain control, so that the volume of the different tracks isn't jarring. Then, maybe a little light compression. It cuts down on the dynamics, but for general listening, this is usually more pleasing.
But the reality is, you are the listener. Choose what you like. Just don't overdrive your speakers.
posted by gjc at 5:02 PM on December 3, 2008
I find that any dance/party-themed music, along with R&B of any era and soul music, all benefit from notching up the 64, 125, and 250 hrtz ranges, with 64 getting the largest boost and 250 the least. Kick drums are usually centered around 60 to 80 hertz, and the first fundamentals of most of the notes in Motown-style bass playing will be in the 80 to 250 range, so cranking them up will give you a more visceral punch. Note that this is on my mid-range computer speakers, and that I play bass so I'm biased. On my larger, better system, I keep it generally flat, but I crank the sub.
Stay away from the 32 hertz range unless you're listening to some rap with really dub basslines. Modern music may like to hit this range every once in a while, but the wonderful tightness of R&B basslines has a lot to do with the 60-80 hertz bump that classic Ampeg bass cabs had.
If you're listening to CDs, leave the highs and mids flat, but if your source is mp3s, and particularly low-bit mp3s, I sometimes have to mess with the highs so I can't hear that grainy mp3/horrible joint stereo effect.
And all of this is completely subjective.
posted by Benjy at 5:15 PM on December 3, 2008
Stay away from the 32 hertz range unless you're listening to some rap with really dub basslines. Modern music may like to hit this range every once in a while, but the wonderful tightness of R&B basslines has a lot to do with the 60-80 hertz bump that classic Ampeg bass cabs had.
If you're listening to CDs, leave the highs and mids flat, but if your source is mp3s, and particularly low-bit mp3s, I sometimes have to mess with the highs so I can't hear that grainy mp3/horrible joint stereo effect.
And all of this is completely subjective.
posted by Benjy at 5:15 PM on December 3, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
My advice is to mess with it a lot while listening to your favorite tracks, and when you've got something you like the sound of, switch back and forth between applying the EQ and bypassing it and see what sounds better. If it sounds better bypassed, go back to step one.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:02 PM on December 3, 2008