[tcarcio]

I have a question on Eq'ing. I have a Pioneer Elite that has Mcacc room correction. If I am going to run outboard Eq then should I go into the Pioneer and set it's eq to flat or should I just leave it alone and use the outboard as is? I would think that it should be set to flat and just use the outboard but I am not sure.:dontknow:

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Depends on your external EQ and what you prefer. What are you considering?

Kal

 

[salvasol]

I have a Pioneer Elite that has Mcacc room correction. If I am going to run outboard Eq then should I go into the Pioneer and set it's eq to flat or should I just leave it alone and use the outboard as is? I would think that it should be set to flat and just use the outboard but I am not sure.:dontknow:

In my opinion, I think it doesn't matter ...:hide:

If you use your Pioneer EQ and external EQ you'll using double EQ...maybe is a good thing; I remember reading on my Yamaha manual that is better to apply double filter to correct the signal, maybe you can do the same with both EQ's, use the auto-calibration and then apply extra filtering with the external EQ :yes: :innocent:

 

[tonyvdb]

Personally, I would use the eq to flatten the response of the speakers with the receivers MCACC off and then redo the receivers auto calibration.

 

[OvalNut]

Personally, I would use the eq to flatten the response of the speakers with the receivers MCACC off and then redo the receivers auto calibration.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but I'd do it the other way around. Do the MCACC calibration first, then do any manual EQ on top of that. The reason being that if you EQ flat, then do the auto EQ, you're surrendering control of the final outcome to the receiver.

I'd rather let the receiver take a reasonable stab at leveling what it can, then apply my manual EQ which I can minutely tweak on top of that.


Tim
:drive:

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

It depends on what you find with your frequency response graphs. Normally if you're using outboard equalizers, you'd EQ the system with the receiver's tone controls flat. However, if you find you response that droops on the high end, for instance, a receiver's shelving treble control might be able to address that better than multiple filters from an outboard EQ.

Then there is the issue of program material. Even after EQing my speakers, I occasionally need an overall treble or bass adjustment from the receiver's tone controls, if the program we're watching has some deficiencies.

Regards,
Wayne

 

[tcarcio]

Thanks for all your responses guy's. I have a Nady geq 231 2 channel Equalizer with low and high pass filters that I am not useing because I thought the MCACC would do what I needed. It seems to be the general consenses here that I should experiment by useing both. I just need to get some cables in order to hook it up and I will give it a shot. Once again you guy's alway's help and I really appreciate this forum.:hail: I will let you guy's know in a few day's how it works out.:yes:

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Be interested to see how that works out - typically cheap equalizers are a bad idea in a hi-fi system. This post offers a couple of simple tests you can perform to give you some idea if your EQ is clean and quiet.

Regards,
Wayne

 

[tonyvdb]

I am assuming the you have an external amp that you will have after the eq and the speakers as you wont have any way to make it work if you dont.

 

[tcarcio]

Be interested to see how that works out - typically cheap equalizers are a bad idea in a hi-fi system. This post offers a couple of simple tests you can perform to give you some idea if your EQ is clean and quiet.

Regards,
Wayne

Thanks Wayne, I will check it out.

I am assuming the you have an external amp that you will have after the eq and the speakers as you wont have any way to make it work if you dont.

I am running external amps so I am all set....