Adding An Equalizer to My Rotel System

[frank1203]

Whats the easier way for a novice like me to set up / add an equalizer to my system? I have the RSX-1056 Receiver and the RMB-1075 Amp. I am bi-amping 2 front Paradigm Studio 100's to the 1075 and powering the CC-570 Center speaker. The 1056 is powering the two rears. Mostly everything is wired using co-ax.

I want to make the most efficient and easiest set up as possible. Basically, power the EQ on automatically when I'm doing anything (listening to music (CDs / Phone / Tuner) or watching a DVD or TV).

I understand that most of you will say that a system like this does not need an EQ, but I have gone over and over this in this forum and believe I need one to accentuate the sound I am looking for.

Thanks!

[soundhound]

Lots of people used devices to obtain a specific sound for movies, surround modes, etc......
Have you heard "the sound" you are after? Did it consist of Rotel-Paradigm?
Many things have a big impact on sound without adding "more" hardware.
Is it 2 channel or multi-channel you are pursueing?
You're list of goodies sounds pretty competant as is, it may be just a matter of dialing everything you have in.
Rooms (treatment), speaker placement, phasing, processor settings............
I just ask the above questions for the fact of it it were Rotel-Paradigm that did it for you, you are there, eveything just needs to be dialed in.
If it were not, you will have a tough time making that combo sound like another, regardless of what you add.
The 12 volt trigger(s) can be used to control most anything you want, so "ease of set-up" is not a problem.

[Kevin D]

You will only be able to EQ the front stage as you can't use an EQ with the internal amps. All EQ's will have RCA in and out that you will place in-between the 1056 and the 1075. You will need an EQ with a 12v trigger or get a 12v controllable outlet.

Kevin D.

[frank1203]

Hello. Thank you for replies. To first answer "Soundhound's" post.. through the help of several of you in this forum along with some expert help from Rotel's tech support area, I have made every setting known to mankind. We have touched on many of the things you mentioned and yes, the sound has improved, but I think I can finally say that the settings are optimized and what I'm experiencing is more of what my ear is used to (and the sound that I've heard before) from 20 years of 2 channel analog sound accentuated by an EQ and some old Bose 601 speakers. I think most of you who would audition my system would say it sounds very good and somehat balanced. I am looking however, looking for the extra "pops and sizzles" and don't seem to be able to achieve enough of that.

As far as te Rotel-Pardigm combination, no - I didn't achieve 'the sound' when demmoing this equipment, but then again, I consciously knew that thinkig i would get something clsoe and that my ear would eventually get accustomed to the more balanced true sound. Well, it's been about 5 months and I'm trying but still can't adjust completely, so i thought I did mix in an EQ and make slight adjustments where needed. i hope I answered your questions.

Now to Kevin D. I read your post but don't really understadn what you're tellking me about EQ hookup. You said 'You will only be able to EQ the front stage as you can't use an EQ with the internal amps.." I don't know what thay means. I do somewhat understand the 12 volt trigger comment, but I was hoping someone could provide me with some instructions of what I will and will not be able to do wth the EQ and easy steps to hook it up into my current system.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Kal Rubinson]

Unless there is a multichannel EQ built into your receiver, you will be limited to 2 channel EQs. This means that you can either EQ only the main L/R speakers or you will have to buy 3 EQs to get 5 or 5.1 channels. In all cases, that means that you have line-level inputs/outputs on the receiver in order to intercept the signals.

Kal

[frank1203]

I do not mind having an EQ just for the 2 front speakers because I play my music CDs almost always in 2 channel stereo. So, with that said, how do I hook the EQ up to that configuration?

[Kal Rubinson]

I do not mind having an EQ just for the 2 front speakers because I play my music CDs almost always in 2 channel stereo. So, with that said, how do I hook the EQ up to that configuration?

Between the line outs for L/R and the line-ins on the amps, unless there's something unusual about the EQ.

Kal

[frank1203]

Kal and Kevin

Sorry it took me a while to try out your recommendation on how to hook up an EQ into my Rotel system. As you mentioned in an earlier post, I realize that I cannot make the EQ control the entire system, so just controlling the two fronts for when I play 2 channel stereo would have been fine, but I can't get anything to work.

I want to let you know that I could not find the inputs / outputs that you are referring to on the amp. You talk about "Between the line outs for L/R and the line-ins on the amps, unless there's something unusual about the EQ..." I found the "Line Outs" on the EQ (as well as Tape 1 and Tape 2), but could not find anything that resembles a "Line in" on the Amp.

Also, I wasn't sure if I needed to hook the EQ up into the 1075 or the 1056. Remember, the 1075 is powerring the fronts and the center. But, the 1075 definitely has no place to plug the EQ into, but the 1056 has alot of different possibilities. But, I saw no "Line In". I saw a Tape In; a Video In and a Composite In and something about Multi-Input, but no straight "Line in". I did try the "Tape In" but nothing happened.

Maybe I am just too inexperienced with this stuff and cannot grasp what you are trying to say. If you or anyone else can add anymore detail, I'd certainly appreciate it. I'm stuck!

[Kevin D]

You should currently have 2 RCA cables going from the 1056 to the inputs (line in) of the 1075 L/R. Remove those from the 1075 and plug them into the inputs of the EQ. Take 2 new RCA cables and run from the outputs of the EQ to where the other RCA cables used to go on the 1075.

That's the only way you're going to be able to use the EQ with your current setup and it's only going to effect the left/right speakers.

Kevin D.

[frank1203]

Thaks Kevin. I'll look again, but I'm sure that there are no RCA cables running from the 1056 to the 1075. I see nothing that says Line In. There are custom made coax cables running from the 1075 into the 1056. Is that the same thing? On the back of the 1075, I see connections for the fronts and the center. I also see something that looks like a "T" connection" in the back of the 1075. So, what coax should I look for that goes into the 1056? I see nothing that says "Line in" Also - as I mentioned, the Eq has Tape 1 and Tape 2 jacks as well as the Line in/out jacks. Which one should I use there. Sorry for my confusion.

[denass]

Hi Guys
I have 1066 rotel pre and 1095 power amp.I have a Nad stereo 250w into 8 ohms running 2 professional 18" subs.
I have started using equalisers and love the result.The 5 channels speakers are professional horn speakers running 4 ohms.I have found I can tame the system very easily.The centre channel has its own EQ to make the voices sound more natural and smooth and use just one channel of a stereo EQ.I have a 14 band stereo EQ for the rears and using another stereo EQ for the subs which I turn down all the frequencies above 100 hz.I use a minimum of ten bands per channel.I used to use dbx gear for the subs but found using EQ 's much better.The system can be tuned very easily and if you get a EQ with several memories makes it even easier to test the differences via the EQ's remote.EQ's have made a big difference to making my system sound how I want. ;x(

[Kevin D]

Line in = input = FRONT RIGHT/LEFT T's on the 1075
Line out = output= FRONT RIGHT/LEFT OUT on the 1056
RCA cable = coax = signal wire.

Run cables from the output of the 1056 to line-in on the EQ, run other cable from line-out on the EQ to the T connectors on the 1075.

Kevin D.

[frank1203]

DeNass,

What is the make and model of your Stereo EQ?

Frank

[Kal Rubinson]

Thaks Kevin. I'll look again, but I'm sure that there are no RCA cables running from the 1056 to the 1075. I see nothing that says Line In. There are custom made coax cables running from the 1075 into the 1056. Is that the same thing? On the back of the 1075, I see connections for the fronts and the center. I also see something that looks like a "T" connection" in the back of the 1075. So, what coax should I look for that goes into the 1056? I see nothing that says "Line in" Also - as I mentioned, the Eq has Tape 1 and Tape 2 jacks as well as the Line in/out jacks. Which one should I use there. Sorry for my confusion.

The cables that connect the two units are line-level coax, probably with RCA connectors since that's what these units have. Unplug the front L/R from the amp and plug them into the EQ inputs. Connect another pair from the EQ outputs to the two jacks on the amp that you just liberated.

Kal

[frank1203]

Ok Guys.. I got it work thanks to Kevin's really easy directions...

Now, one more thing... I mentioned in a previous post that the cables used by my installer were Coax. Obviously, I can use the existing coax for one end of the connection to the EQ, but the other end (from the EQ to the 1056)needs a new wire. For the experiment tonight, I used a regular old time RCA red/white jack (It looks like the standard kind that come witha CD player, etc.). Is this a problem? Even though it worked, I would guess it doesn't mix well since the coax is a much stronger and powerful wire. Can I buy premade coax? What do you guys suggest in this situation?

Your help is appreciated. We're getting there!

[Kal Rubinson]

They are the same thing!!!! RCA is a name for the type of connector but all the cables are coaxial. They are premade coax.

Kal

[frank1203]

They don't look the same to me. The coax is a thick white wire with several thin wires in it of different colors and the RCA is a thin black wire with no extra wires in it. I don't think they look the same at all. But, what do I know.

[chrispy35]

Unless the connectors used to go between the 1056, 1075 and EQ are different (which they shouldn't be for this application)...the wires are equivalent.

As long as each wire has some conductor to get the signal from point A to point B (and back for those who are picky), it'll work fine.

Post some pictures of your wires if you can.

Chris P.

[Kal Rubinson]

They don't look the same to me. The coax is a thick white wire with several thin wires in it of different colors and the RCA is a thin black wire with no extra wires in it. I don't think they look the same at all. But, what do I know.

Window dressing. Lots of fancy-looking wires are made with unnecessary decoration/construction but rarely do they contribute anything significant to performance. They do have eye appeal.

Kal

[frank1203]

Guys, I will try and explain one more time and if I get a minute, I will post some pictures as requested. Sorry for repeating myself here, but this jsut doesn't sit right with me..

I have read everything that was said here about the wires and I hear loud and clearly that they are the same, but, they REALLY look totally different.

As I mentioned, the entire system was custom installed and the installer actually made the wires himself (none were purchased). Theses "coax' wires are thick and resemble the same type of wire that is used for cable TV. Only diference is that he crimped on an RCA jack at the ends. Maybe it is window dressing, but they appear pretty imposing and impressive.. Since I have no more of those kinds of custom made wires for the second connection needed from the 1056 to the EQ, I merely used the standard wires that come with CD Players, etc. They look exactly like the wires used in the old analog days..Black in color, flat, very thin and connected by a red and white RCA jack.

I know you guys keep telling they are the same and that they are both "coax". Maybe my problem is that I have never referred to this type of wire as 'coax' before.. They were just cheap RCA jacks. I always thought of coax as something you use to connect your cable TV.

Finally, I will tell you that hearing my old EQ last night playing with the Rotel and Paradigm equipment, definitley gave me a much sharper sound and I could really hear the crisp highs I was looking for that haven't been able to achieve. It was nice being able to clearly hear the drummers high hat and ride cymbals in the music without ahveing to struggle to hear it as before. I know that EQs are a no-no for audiophiles, and I really thought I'd get the sound I was looking for without an EQ, but honestly I didn't. I really tried everything and made many setting changes. I git alot of advice from folks in this forum and the great tech support team at Rotel. No doubt things did improve with the setting changes, but I still never achieved the "pops and sizzles" that I was hoping for. Aftet four months of experimenting, I came to the conclusion that I have tried every setting known to mankind and that the problem is that I cannot get my ear to adjust to something new, since the last 20 years I have been listening to EQ'd music on Bose 601 speakers.

I'd certainly aprecaite your thoughts on my EQ wires questions and the above comments / opinions.

Thanks!

[Kal Rubinson]

OK. Now, every week, move each of the settings on the EQ a small increment towards flat so that your ear/brain learns to enjoy untwisted sound.

Oh, if your installer used cable TV coax, he probably did if for his own convenience/cost so that he only has to stock one kind of cable and can terminate it as needed. Nothing special.

Kal

[2bluechris]

OK. Now, every week, move each of the settings on the EQ a small increment towards flat so that your ear/brain learns to enjoy untwisted sound.

---> I'll interpolate here {by Chris} -> :- I'll second that as I did it myself over a period of about 10 years . It is worth the effort , as one can then enjoy hearing the fine details , and nuances of performance , in recordings that sound unpleasant when over-EQ'd , along with some things that are missed owing to the EQ highlighting other aspects .
With balanced response loudspeakers , well placed in the room , excess EQ eventually becomes fatiguing , but as for Bose 601s , well , those were designed with a different priority !


Oh, if your installer used cable TV coax, he probably did if for his own convenience/cost so that he only has to stock one kind of cable and can terminate it as needed. Nothing special.


Kal

I'll second that also !!

[chrispy35]

I'm for EQ too. Some of us don't have the option of ideal placement, room dimensions and/or treatements. EQ can go a long way in smoothing out the bottom end. Flat frequency response is a priority and EQ is a high-WAF way to get there. Plus it's one more toy...

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm for EQ too. Some of us don't have the option of ideal placement, room dimensions and/or treatements. EQ can go a long way in smoothing out the bottom end. Flat frequency response is a priority and EQ is a high-WAF way to get there. Plus it's one more toy...

Yeah but most graphic EQs are totally unsuited for this and most are misused. I'll bet there isn't 1 good setup with a GEQ for every 10 made worse by it. A parametric EQ is better because you can tailor the F and Q to your needs, assuming you have measured and know your needs. Finally, correcting the amplitude response is only a small part of room correction which demands adjustment of the time decay at critical frequencies.

So, fwiw, I am for EQ, too. I am just NOT for plopping it into a system and moving the sliders ad lib.

Kal

[chrispy35]

Right-o. Pink noise + RTA is definitely the way to go with GEQs.

Chris P.

[Kal Rubinson]

Right-o. Pink noise + RTA is definitely the way to go with GEQs.

Right-o but only half the job.

Kal

[denass]

Hi Frank
my best stereo EQ is 14 band 5 memory stereo BSR EQ14/14 with remote.
I install Home Theater Systems here in Adelaide Australia.I have spectrum analyzers and sound pressure meter,Audio signal generator and prefer to use my ears to set up my system.You can get a room to sound reasonbly flat with this gear but there are draw backs.One is even if the room was perfectly flat our hearing is not. Everyone has different hearing like all rooms are different.So I have found making the system sound better to your own ears is much better than making a room as flat as possible.Everyones hearing response is not flat and also everyone has peaks and troughs, if we get a gragh of your actual hearing per ear.This brings me to another point---we have 2 ears and can have a big difference between them.This is why I forget about the measuring gear to a large degree.The sub placement within a room is a perfect example.I place the sub at my listening position and play nice tight low thumping bass---then walk around the room or crawl to find where the best bass that I like and mark that spot.This is where the sub goes if feasable.Then on to the EQ for the sub to get it to sound how I like it.
I have found this to work best.A bonus is a EQ with memories is it can be set one memory for music and one for movies.You can at the touch of a button flick between memories to find the one you like.I leave one memory to play with and compare against the others.

[Kal Rubinson]

Hi Frank
my best stereo EQ is 14 band 5 memory stereo BSR EQ14/14 with remote.
I install Home Theater Systems here in Adelaide Australia.I have spectrum analyzers and sound pressure meter,Audio signal generator and prefer to use my ears to set up my system.You can get a room to sound reasonbly flat with this gear but there are draw backs.One is even if the room was perfectly flat our hearing is not. Everyone has different hearing like all rooms are different.So I have found making the system sound better to your own ears is much better than making a room as flat as possible.Everyones hearing response is not flat and also everyone has peaks and troughs, if we get a gragh of your actual hearing per ear.

This logic is misleading. Our auditory systems continually adapt so the result is that music in such a room will sound different from real music because you have introduced a new filter, not present anywhere else. If the reference is, as usual, real music and sounds, this room will fail in comparison.

A bonus is a EQ with memories is it can be set one memory for music and one for movies.You can at the touch of a button flick between memories to find the one you like.I leave one memory to play with and compare against the others.

You are not talking about correction here; you are talking about flavoring.

Kal

[denass]

Hi Kal
thankyou for your reply.
I like my music and movies to sound as close to being real as possible.This includes dynamic range,clarity and vocals sounding smooth.This is what I aim for plus the wow factor. No rooms are anyway near perfect,ad furnishings and everything is out.I had one place where adding light curtains to a room made that room sound completely different---worse.This was noticed by several people.I flavor my EQ's to get the best out of my system which is night and day by comparison.This is just my own personal way I prefer things.I have tried many other ways of getting it to work but equalizing has worked the best for me.

[Kal Rubinson]

I am glad you have found a successful approach to satisfaction for you but I still question your association of it with accurate reproduction. Wow factor is almost always the wrong thing.

Kal

[denass]

hi Kal
the wow factor is for me getting as close to sounding like the real thing.
I did a sound engineering course many years ago.I was really taken aback by how much is lost by professional microphones.This as you say colors significantly the original source.If you see a B&K frequency response of mics you see how unflat they are.The room the artist/artists use colors the sound.Nothing in the reproduction chain is even close to the original,take cymbals at a live concert and what we end up with reproduced.My wow factor is when you start to reproduce something that is approaching what a real sound is like eg an explosion or instrument.This is why I went with professional speakers that can handle high dynamic range.Ofcourse there are purists who do not like adding extra components into a system but I believe if it makes it sound more life like go for it.The recording process we have today is still way off from being close to sounding the same as if we were there.If you go into a recording studio and look around you will see plenty of processors/eq's and these color the sound too.They are used to fix problem frequencies or color the recording to the engineers likes.The bottom line is if we could get perfect reproduction of an original source then there wouldnt be a problem.Everyone's system sounds different,every room will sound different as is everyones taste on how they like it.Give me the wow factor anytime.

[Kal Rubinson]

I am not against EQ for the cure of specific problems. (I use EQ on my subs, EQ for room modes and I have a z-systems digital EQ for mangled recordings.) OTOH, if the mics and the mixers missed it, you can't put it back.

"Everyone's system sounds different,every room will sound different as is everyones taste on how they like it." All true. The first two are fixable but taste is not debatable.

Kal

[frank1203]

Wow Guys!

I am really enjoying the discussion and opinions about equalizers. I'm learning alot and am very glad that I made this initial post.

I have decided to purchase one to satisfy my need for "flavoring" the music that I listen. No doubt, everything is about personal taste. I am heavily into the drum / cymbal sound and a thumping bass, and flat recordings typically don't get me to the Wow factor. I was hoping that my new Rotel / Paradigm gear would get me closer to this (without having to add an EQ) and I tried (boy did I try) to change every setting to get me there.

As I mentiond before, the purist would listen to my system and probably call me crazy for even making a post like this because they would say that I got exactly what I paid for which a good clean sound. But, from my vantage point, something is missing which you termed as the Wow Factor! I couldn't agree more.

So, I am going to invest in an EQ. Now, the next question is.. I have been researching EQs like crazy and there is very little to choose from. There are many used EQs on Ebay (even Rotel had one years ago), but I want new.

I saw the graphic EQ vs. Parametric debate and I think I will stay with the graphic. So, guys what can you recommend? The BSR 14 14 that was mentioned is no longer made. Can you point me to something good that is new?

[chrispy35]

For those who aren't against used, the Yamaha EQ-550 or EQ-1100u are both decent. They come with a mic and pink noise generator so there is at least some systematic way of analyzing things. The 1100 also comes with a remote but is harder to find.

Chris P.

[frank1203]

Thanks for the recommendations, Chris. But in reality, I am against "used" so I was hoping you or someone could give me some recommendations for an EQ that is new. I do currently own an old BSR EQ (probably 15 years old, but its on its way out), All I've been able to see so far is something by a company called AudioSource for a new purchase. Any other ideas. Does anyone know about AudioSource?

[raider]

Audio controll makes a real good 7 channel eq for home theater applications.
I use one in my system and when "properly used" can make a huge difference!!!!
Two models are avalable , the realto and the bijou.
Check out there website.

http://www.audiocontrol.com/

[Kal Rubinson]

Audiosource is mid-fi in my (limited) experience.

Kal

[raider]

Pretty pricey stuff for mid fi i would say entry level hi end!!
In my Humble opinion!!

[Kal Rubinson]

Pretty pricey stuff for mid fi i would say entry level hi end!!
In my Humble opinion!!

Prices aside (and I do find them low), the sound (and construction) quality of the 2 Audiosource components I've had is what qualifies them as mid-fi. As I said, my experience was limited as I unloaded them fairly quickly.

Kal

[raider]

Are we talking about the same product???
Audio Control is different than Audiosource!!

[Kal Rubinson]

I've been talking about Audiosource, explicitly, all along. Audio Control is quite different.

Kal

[frank1203]

I looked at the Audio Control Stuff. Looks really good. I checked out both the Bijou and the Rialto. They both appear expensive (more than $500.00?) but I'm not sure. Which of the two is the better model? it's hard to tell. Both these units are for "Home Theater" .. Will still do a good job with just playing music CDs as opposed to video? Equalizing the music is more of my issue. Also, is hookup easy? Is it still as easy as Kal and kevin mentioned in the beginning of this post?

[Kal Rubinson]

Of the Audio Control devices, the "Bijou" is an interactive GEQ. The other product(s) are more for room EQ and required entering setup menus with OSD for manipulation. Decent stuff.

Kal

[frank1203]

Thanks Kal, but I'm still not sure of the differences in these EQs. What is the difference between an "interactive" EQ and a "Room" EQ. Based on all my posts, and need for flavoring, which one is better for me.

Also, are connections as easy as what you and Kevin have previously specified?

[Kal Rubinson]

Thanks Kal, but I'm still not sure of the differences in these EQs. What is the difference between an "interactive" EQ and a "Room" EQ. Based on all my posts, and need for flavoring, which one is better for me.

Also, are connections as easy as what you and Kevin have previously specified?

Probably the former in graphic EQ form. I assume you are familiar with that, although I prefer a parametric.

The differences I alluded to above is that with an interactive one, you hear the changes as you adjust the controls on the front panel. The ones used primarily for room EQ usually work through a computer/video display interface, can store 1 or more EQ patterns and, generally, provide finer control adjustments on screen. The effect of these adjustments may not be audible during the adjustment phase but only when set or selected.

If you go to the AudioSource website and look at the two EQs for HT that they list, you can investigate those differences.


Kal