Originally Posted by JackOften
I own a eQ.2 and it takes a fair amount of tinkering to be effective. Their are no digital displays (just knobs) and the eq width utilizes octaves vs. frequencies, so you gotta pull out your calculator and start plotting numbers to find where you want to apply the boost/knock out a peak. You could literally spend a day measuring, tuning, and re-measuring trying to use it to flatten out a response.
It's not a bad tool, but if they were trying trying to use it with all 5 subs as you suggested, they woulda been in for another 40+ hours of testing and evaluation. We wouldn't have seen this great work until March.
I'm not calling you or anybody else lazy who doesn't want to go to the trouble of tinkering, but there isn't that much to it.
1) Get some decent pink noise test tones.
2) Get a rat-shack spl meter (analog will do). Use c-weighting,
3) run the test tones at the desired frequencies (100hz on down, at 10 hz intervals. Maybe going to 5hz intervals at 40hz).
4) get a baseline at your listening position and write it down.
Here is some good info on using the eQ.2:http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/s...2-measurements
for an octave calculator spreadsheet. I did not make it, you can thank Dominguez1
for that. It's easy to use. Find what frequencies you need to boost or buck and enter those as central freqs in the calc. Then adjust the q as necessary, starting with the q setting on as narrow as possible (smallest number). This will give you a baseline. Now go back and check your measurements. Once you set it, forget it.
I really don't see how that is so much trouble. People spend HOURS on this forum reading. This could easily be accomplished by an average joe inside of 45 minutes without putting your cold beer down.
Considering how much less expensive the eQ.2 is than other competing solutions, it seems like it would be worth the trouble to most people. Some don't HAVE another $400 or more to splurge on an outboard eq solution. If one doesn't have an auto-eq in their receiver, or if they are two-channel only, then the eQ.2 makes a huge amount of sense.
Using my buddy's RTA, I spent, literally, about 12 minutes tinkering. Sans RTA, a regular spl meter would have about tripled that time. Considering you only have to do it once, it seems time well spent to me.
It hardly would have added 40 hours to the review. At most
another hour for each sub, considering tinkering time.
Further, the Rhythmik would have about exploded with any amount of EQ added, so after switching the subsonic filter to "on" and deciding on a cutoff freq, that's all you can do there. Same with the CS 18.2 (the amp would have run out of gas even SOONER). The HSU and Epik may have been able to accept some EQ, but with reduced headroom (the Epik already uses, to good effect, a small amount of internal EQ). The most time fiddling would have been spent with the A7s-450, because it can tolerate more EQ added due to it having the most headroom. I suppose that would have made the test skewed...but then, again, eD MAKES the eQ.2...so maybe it's not unfair to use it with a product it was designed to be used for. Most of the other subs are running at redline, the A7s-450 has the most potential for tweaking. That was borne out by measurements and by listening experience in the review. Considering that tweaking costs exactly ZERO dollars, I would think that many end-users would take advantage of the added potential.
OctaveCalculationEQ2.zip 2.287109375k . file