• Registered: 2019-11-11
  • Posts: 5

Topic: About the ADI-2 DAC PEQ (request?)

Hi, quick question here...

Is there a technical limitation towards the amount of bands that can be adjusted on the DAC (5 bands + B/T)? My assumption is that it was set to 5 to make it somewhat readable on the screen of the DAC itself. However, I wonder now that the windows app has been out for some time, whether or not the number of bands on the PEQ can be extended (through an option in the menu perhaps) to support up to 10 bands (LS/HP/HC/PK, 8x PK, HS/HC/PK)?

Reason being that many times when I wish to EQ speakers or headphones the available PEQs that can be found online based on FR graphs of those speakers/headphones assume people use software like Equalizer APO or other, and the adjustments are given in 10 band PEQ. It's a real pain to modify those towards the 5 band PEQ of the RME, a lot of times not possible at all.

Yes, for general adjustments, 5 band EQ is enough, but sometimes you need general tuning adjustments, but also take out, for example, a nasty peak in the 7-9K region, as well as an overemphasis on the lower mids to really dial the sound in perfectly. In those cases a 5 band EQ isn't able to help out.

It would be wonderful to be able to get rid of additional software like EAPO as it adjusts the EQ system wide and gets in the way with recording software where my personal EQ is also recorded and people listening to that recording or stream will have very poor sound quality unless they have the exact same system as me.

Hopefully, if possible, this could be considered.

Thank you very much, and best Xmas wishes to anyone reading this smile

2 Reply by KaiS (edited by KaiS 2023-12-24 01:39:46)

  • KaiS
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: Germany
  • Registered: 2020-02-05
  • Posts: 3,525

Re: About the ADI-2 DAC PEQ (request?)

There are indeed hardware limitations in the available DSP power - not at traditional sample rates 44.1 to 192 kHz, but beyond.

To deal with the current options, an approach helps to prioritize the important EQ bands and leave out the ones that have minor to no audible -, or sometimes even determining effect.

Specially those net published, measurement based, extremely detailed corrections in the range above ca. 2 kHz are mostly contraindicated.


A multitude of factors renders them useless.
Following those slavishly does not yield good results.


https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 56#p193056
Why are narrowband EQ corrections with foreign origin questionable and should be just left away?
ALL the measurement-based EQ curves from the internet are wrong above ca. 2-3 kHz, with very few single exceptions.


The measurement systems used do not supply data with a high enough VALID frequency resolution to justify narrow EQ bands.
You cannot EQ better than your measurement is.

One has to be aware of the limits of a measurement system to judge it’s results.
If you compensate above these limits you introduce errors, and leave the errors you want to compensate untouched.


• Even slight changes in headphone’s placement, on your head or the measurement coupler, yield totally different results for frequencies above ca. 2 kHz.
Which one to use then, and why?
Averaging various positions doesn’t help much, practically you don’t listen to an average, but a discrete positioning.

• The famous “Harman”- and other compensations are strongly smoothed, coarse approximations for a very certain setup, intentionally leaving out the fine details of the curve, therefore limit frequency dependent precision.

• People use Harman- or other compensations as if they were valid for other measurement rigs too, which they aren’t.

• Most compensations, except “Freefield” do use the room sound signals without any angular weighting.
Opposed to that the human brain does give a lot more weight to the direct sound from the source, above the room-reflected sounds.

• Your personal pinnae have different shapes, and therefore different HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function, angle dependent frequency response) than the measurement “ear”, coupler.

• Each human’s auditorial system permanently adapts to the sound colors it’s presented, like the eye adapts to light colors.
You have to “readjust” that from time to time with natural sounds to judge an artificial reproduction system.
The amount of ability for those adaptions is different for each individual, and there are limits.

• There are certain characteristics of a headphone or loudspeaker that are prominent and specific enough worth for correction, the famous 6 kHz peak of Sennheiser’s HD-800 comes into mind.
Even this one doesn’t annoy everybody.


Remark:
Didn ‘t you notice, all these Oratory, Auto EQ Project and most other Internet fine-tweak-EQ Setups simply sound like shit (sorry for the strong word) in the upper range?
Doesn't a simple Treble Shelf EQ or broadband Peak EQ, or a combination of both, adjusted to taste, give better results?

The measurements, BTW, can give a starting point for COARSE correction above 2 kHz, and below 2kHz measurements actually are quite valid, if your can achieve a good seal on your head.


Finally:
I do my EQs based on measurements on my own head, using my own compensation curve.
Even this is limited and has to be adjusted by taste over a period of several weeks or months at least.

KaiS's Website

3 Reply by reddot (edited by reddot 2023-12-24 01:54:26)

  • Registered: 2019-11-11
  • Posts: 5

Re: About the ADI-2 DAC PEQ (request?)

Thanks for the detailed response, I'm well aware of the measuring equipment limitations and at best it gives a starting point, but of course there is unit variation, your personal HRTF, your own hearing capabilities, not to mention your own preference.

It takes me hours upon hours to setup the EQ how I like it going through a massive amount of music with specific "flaws" that highlight shortcomings in the FR. This can sometimes take weeks once you get to very fine adjustments... and those adjustments are entirely personal and may look off plotted against a Harman curve (I would guess, but I don't have a measuring device smile )

Nevertheless, It's rare that I'm able to find my sweet spot under 8 bands adjustment. Hence this topic. Getting rid off EAPO would for me personally be a big deal.

PS.
- I don't like Harman curve too much, too forward in the upper mids, generally too much in the sibilant range for my liking, not enough "air" ... and too much in the bass region.
- I agree on the online PEQ being crap out off the box, so to say, like I said... a general starting point but by no means correct / end all solution to great sound

4 Reply by KaiS (edited by KaiS 2023-12-24 10:10:46)

  • KaiS
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: Germany
  • Registered: 2020-02-05
  • Posts: 3,525

Re: About the ADI-2 DAC PEQ (request?)

There are some tricks to save bands.


Quite often I have simplified EQ settings like this:

• FFT-measuring the EQ’s response in the digital domain - an easy task due to ADI-2’s loopback function.

• Setting the measurement app into compare mode, to see the difference between the 1st measurement and a new setting.

• Approximating the original curve with fewer EQ bands.


This usually works within a few 1/10th of a dB.
Playing with frequency, gain and Q-factor often a single EQ band can replace two or more others.

As I’m streaming with iPhone, I’m using the FFT part of AudioTools by Andrew Smith for iPad / iPhone.
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/fft/id298840058

But, any advanced measurement soft can be used for this.

KaiS's Website