Talk:Equalization (audio)

What does this mean?

• "The original meaning of "equalization" refers to the compensation of an audio system's frequency response in order to accurately reproduce an audio signal as it was originally intended." "Compensation" and "audio system's frequency response" = ??? Does this mean that equalization = doing something to the sound so that what came out of your stereo speakers sounded like what was played in a recording studio? Is it cool if I just say that?--Atlantictire (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• "In the fields of sound recording and reproduction, equalization (British: equalisation) refers to the intentional adjustment of the tone of an audio signal using an electronic circuit." Tone has so many meanings and is one of the most ambiguous terms in all of music. A good way to start a fight is to start talking about tone! What's wrong with starting out by talking about pitch and loudness? Also, the first sentence of a lead should never start with a dependent clause followed by a comma. The style gnome says tsk!:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to other sections

• "With more and more music being created electronically (rather than ever using a microphone to pick up the sound of an acoustic instrument) the distinction has become further blurred."

• "These are examples of first-order shelving filters which provide a very coarse control over the tonal balance of an audio program. as played through a home audio system. More detailed control of frequency response can be obtained through a graphic equalizer which might provide adjustment of sound levels in 6 to 10 frequency bands, typically, when included in a home stereo system."

• "a graphic equalizer used in professional audio equipment (in recording studios, broadcast studios, and sound reinforcement) may have individual gain adjustments for up to 30 frequency bands, allowing for very detailed adjustment of the overall frequency response. "

Look, if you're editing it why don't you SAVE your edits so I can actually see them? That's better than just describing what you're doing (thus writing it twice!) I don't think it matters if someone comes to this article while it's half-baked. And yes, you understood my meaning and you could probably word it better but it doesn't have to be quite as simple as you said (but I want to see your version).

But from what you have said so far, of the 4 things #1 and #2 have to do with defining the word in relation to its literal meaning, which I think the reader deserves to hear. Granted that could be done in a second section. But the original meaning of equalization is important enough that it probably belongs in the lede, in which case you need to mention the USUAL meaning as well, and point out that sometimes one can't even state how the music was meant to be heard in the first place because it never existed acoustically. That's why I wrote it that way. But hell, please press "SAVE" right now and let me see what you're cooking up there, already! Interferometrist (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see your latest changes to simplify the wording in the lede, which makes some sense but I wouldn't have gone quite so far. But I can see problems in the wording and will offer another edit (careful: if you're working on another section it will report an edit conflict when you try to save). In particular, the word "pitch" is a poor substitute for "frequency content," and "tone" is better, but th identification with "frequency response" needs to be made early in the article for someone to be able to appreciate the rest. Check it in a few minutes.... Interferometrist (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tone vs. pitch

"In the fields of sound recording and reproduction, equalization (British: equalisation) refers to the intentional adjustment of the tone of an audio signal using an electronic circuit." Tone has so many meanings. What's wrong with starting out by talking about pitch and loudness?--Atlantictire (talk)

Maybe this is a semantic problem, but my understanding is that "tone" refers to the frequency content and its balance. "Pitch" refers to the frequency itself. So if a guitar is out of tune then you must adjust a string to change the PITCH, whereas if the wood is in bad shape that may affect its TONE even when in tune. So your wording was right where you talked about the loudness (another poor word) of various PITCHES, but one can also say that the TONE is off when different pitches are reproduced at the wrong relative amplitudes.

At least that's what *I* think when I hear these words, but it's the reader that's important. If there are a few other editors reading this (ideally ones completely unfamiliar with the field, but that's not likely!) then let me know if you (dis-)agree with my use of the words, or more importantly how the "average guy" will understand what was written in this version of the lede (now reverted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equalization_(audio)&oldid=425716671

I guess either of us could be wrong (not understanding the word as its most often understood). But don't you think there is a good reason they are called "tone controls", and that's not just technical talk, after all. --Interferometrist (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I see you kept most of my suggestions and I don't want to make a big deal out of nothing, but we might as well get it right if there is a "right." I also don't agree with this wording:

The circuit or equipment used to achieve equalization is called an equalizer.

Well, no. A tone control isn't called an equalizer, it is called a linear filter but you didn't want to introduce that term right away. I believe that the first piece of equipment sold as an "equalizer" came long after the concept of equalization was recognized and applied using linear filters not having such a name, and the tone controls on a stereo are not usually called an "equalizer" though if someone WANTED to call them that I'd have little reason to argue (they're like a 2-channel graphic equalizer, I guess). But saying that in the second sentence gives the wrong definition of equalizer according to common usage. Sorry to be picky :-) --Interferometrist (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tone is one of the most ambiguous terms in all of music and needs to be carefully contextualized. You'd have to write a pretty ponderous first sentence to make clear exactly which meaning of "tone" you're talking about. "Tone" is a fightin' word!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I rather disagree: I thought the meaning in such a sentence was fairly clear. (And you left "tonal balance" in a later sentence, no?) But we're not going to settle this between ourselves because we both have developed our own idea of what the word implies; I don't think consulting a dictionary would do justice to the issue. We REALLY need a 3rd/4th opinion. Doesn't have to be right now, but I'm sure there are opinions out there (.... are there ever!) Interferometrist (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know right away what you were talking about and I think that counts for something. See below.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also

Ok, we don't have to agree on everything and a 3rd opinion (anyone out there?) that agreed with you would be enough to shut me up on any of these issues (you better not have a sock-puppet! ;-) -- I'll just mention a few things:

Examples include the familiar treble and bass controls on a home stereo system

You took that out of the first paragraph and I thought it was good because it provided a very familiar example that almost anyone could relate to. But I had MOVED it from a later paragraph but when you cut it it went away completely. Think again?

use of electronic circuits classified as linear filters which

Changed to: using linear filters

Now by saying "electronic circuits" I made it easier for someone to understand WITHOUT looking up linear filters, and what's more if they HAD looked up linear filter they would NOT have been told that these are necessarily electronic -- the concept is somewhat broader. Although it might seem obvious, if we're simplifying the lede then it doesn't hurt to say for sure that we're talking about electronic circuits, their classification being secondary. And many many circuits ARE classified as linear filters which are NOT equalizers such as the tuned circuits in your radio. The other important thing being emphasized here (and not for the lay person) is that equalization circuits ONLY involve linear filters, not non-linear circuits which might sometimes be used for other purposes (like adding distortion to a guitar).

even if solely for aesthetic reasons.

I think was better, because it emphasizes the variance of the current usage with the literal meaning. But this is becoming less important so I'll shut up -- (I'll now look at what you just wrote). Interferometrist (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Equalization involves using linear filters to alter the frequency response of an audio system. Most hi-fi (stereo) equipment uses relatively simple filters to make bass and treble adjustments". I think it makes sense to have it here, but if you'd like to give some quick examples earlier that's fine.

My main concern is that the sentences in the first paragraph of the lead be very easy to digest. They should elicit an "oh, ok. that makes sense" and not "wait. what? what's that mean? is this even English?"--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your criterion and will try to stick to that (but I hadn't thought that I violated it). We still have a few differences apparently but I'd like input from others. Also, isn't it customary in Wikipedia for an article about a term, especially if it has multiple uses, to specify its meaning in the article as "In the field of XXXXX a YYYYY is a ....."? My formulation did that ("In the fields of sound recording and reproduction.....") while yours simply refers to a "process commonly used in sound recording and reproduction". Isn't the first preferable for the reason of delineating the present scope of the word which has other usages (even in electronics)? Interferometrist (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Parametric equalization and Smiley face curve were orignally proposed to be merged into Equalization. Merge destinations moved here. Please review the discussion at Talk:Equalization and discuss intent here, if necessary, before proceeding. --Kvng (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Smiley face curve merge
• Oppose Parametric equalization merge

Change of heart. Let those articles continue to exist as outlets for pedants. I fear they'll overrun this one if you take the others away, and that would be too bad as the Equalization (audio) article in its current state is more or less readable.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the best way to keep pedants at bay is to improve the article. --Kvng (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to cover graphic equalizers here and not parametric equalizers. I just looked at the parametric eq article and it consists of:

1. A very brief description of what a parametric equalizer adjusts, essentially what I wrote here under 2nd order filter functions (which I was going to refer to in the parametric eq section since these are what a parametric eq adjusts DIRECTLY)..
2. A description of what audio equalization is good for. That SURELY belongs in this article! These are just basic equalization tasks but which a parametric equalizer does better than trying to use a graphical eq. Hell, just copy that text to here, and remove the word "parametric" (but point out that parametric equalizers are better etc.)
3. A little bit of history. Alright, I don't know where that goes exactly, but there wasn't much of it and it could get integrated into this article.

Leaving these as separate articles just means a lot of duplication, as far as I can see

Ok

• Support Parametric equalization merge, so long as a duplicate information is first deleted. A lot of what has been written here was much more carefully thought through then what is in that article, so let's not replace the text in this article with text from that one.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Suport British EQ merge. British EQ isn't really anything other than a marketing term/myth cooked up in the 1980s to convince recording studios to buy expensive British mixing consoles. So, by merge here I mean "delete" with maybe a sentence mentioning British EQ in uses. The British EQ article in its current state is mostly un-cited hearsay.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

there really wasn't much of anything in the parametric equalization article that wasn't already here, so I went ahead and merged it.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cancelling the Smiley face curve merge proposal. There doesn't seem to be support for it. Smiley face curve is large, detailed and thickly referenced. Merging it here would create an WP:UNDUE issue. I'm not convinced that the material is useful but if it comes to it, we'll leave that decision to WP:AFD. -—Kvng 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've completed the British EQ merge. The only potentially useful piece was the lead. The rest was WP:ESSAY, WP:POV and WP:OR. The merge is not yet well integrated. Feel free to help improve this. -—Kvng 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Language in lede

Now changing the subject somewhat, I am still dismayed by the wording in the lede. Alright, Atlantictire thinks the word "tone" shouldn't be used to mean "frequency balance" because it has too many other connotations among musicians. Well if so, then we just need to say "frequency", and define it if necessary (I hadn't thought it would be, but...). The first sentence of the second paragraph is unreadable. And then the next sentence goes ahead and USES "tone" casually, but I got chewed out when I tried to use the word in the first paragraph! I don't get it. What on earth is wrong with the first sentence of the Equalization () article:

Equalization, (British: equalisation) is the process of adjusting the balance between frequency components within an electronic signal.

Can't we just copy that? Is the term "frequency" really so geeky? "loudness of certain pitches" really sounds terrible. -- Interferometrist (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't start by talking about frequency and frequency balance. You've been immersed in this language so long that you forget your average person does not know about the properties of soundwaves and what they're called. Maybe they remember something about frequencies having to do with radios, but I wouldn't count on it and, even if they do, there's a pretty good chance they won't make the connection you expect them to! On the other hand, everyone knows what a high pitch voice is.

How is the that sentence "unreadable"? Also, by the time you get to the word "tone" there's enough context to figure out what it is. I had a problem with that word being in the first sentence. And no one's chewing anyone out. Just tryin' to 'splain.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreadable clause:

so that pitch volumes heard through speakers.....

Ok, maybe you can make it formally grammatical by saying "pitches' volumes" (I think I got that right) but it still sounds awful. I had really thought "tone" conveyed the idea to the average person but if not I can hardly imagine that "pitch volumes" is clearer. Can anyone else think of a "layman's term" for "frequency content"? If there isn't, then it would be better to just use the correct term and.... <gasp> add a second sentence to explain what "frequency" means! Interferometrist (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm not crazy about "pitch volumes" in the second paragraph either, but there is no explanation of "tonal balance" on wikipedia. I would be comfortable using the term tonal balance if it could be linked to a serviceable definition. Would you mind writing one, perhaps on the tone control circuit page? Keep it simple, keep it elegant.

The explanation of audio frequency is pretty convoluted. I still think it makes perfect sense to introduce equalization to readers using the concepts of "pitch" and "loudness", but when frequency is finally mentioned it would be nice to be able to link it to something sensical. A better definition ought to be written. I'll try looking for a good one and then give it a shot.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Tonal balance" isn't a needed article so there's no point in writing one just so we can link to it! In fact, "tonal balance" (if we were to use those words) is EXACTLY what equalization is all about, so it belongs HERE! If you need to define frequency (or tone) in terms of "pitch", then do that instead. And sure, DO talk about tonal balance in the body, which sounds like a layman's term for equalization, no? I don't know what simpler terms to possibly use: musicians understand "highs" and "lows." Or "bass" and "treble" are well understood. But as I said, it's better to add a sentence to identify (not define) "frequency" if that's what's needed to make this readable. -- Interferometrist (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, tonal balance sounds like a term used by a guy who already knows what to do with an equalizer.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we could simply reverse the subject and predicate of the second sentence in the lead, since all equalizers are x, but not all x are equalizers?--Atlantictire (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Why didn't I think of that myself? Except I think it would also help (and wouldn't create any additional confusion because it isn't essential to understanding the sentence) to add that any such circuits are classified as linear filters (but again, not visa-versa). -- Interferometrist (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well... linear filters are a scary new concept. I showed this lead to my friend, and that was really the only part he choaked on (as in, "huh?"). Not many humanities majors have ever seen those two words adjacent to each other, or understand a filter as something other than what you use to make coffee. When I was first learning about all of this stuff last year, I took one look at the "passive and active filters" definition of EQ and said "oh never mind". I know, I KNOW... equalization in your mind is synonymous with filters. But can you trust me on this? Let the reader spend a little more time on familiar turf before confronting him with that term. We really are that dumb!--Atlantictire (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a ridiculous discussion and is a waste of my time and your time. The term linear filter should be included when you mention equalizers (especially in the more general sense of circuits, not only boxes that say "equalizer" on them) because that is what an equalizer IS. It would be as if the article on the Boeing 747 didn't mention that it was an airplane or the article on IBM PC only mentioned that it was an electronic device that performed millions of calculations per second and never called it a computer. I specifically said NOT to use the term in a way that someone would need prior knowledge to appreciate the sentence, but to indicate that an equalizer (equalization circuit) IS a linear filter, which is linked to should they wish further explanation, or otherwise they can just read the rest of the article about what it DOES, why it's NEEDED, and who uses them etc. I don't know how clearer I can be (except by editing it myself and waiting for your explanation of your reversion) and don't want to discuss this further. The lede should say what the subject IS, whether it's a familiar term or not. - Interferometrist (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you there. People who edit wikipedia forget sometimes that most of planet Earth looks at these articles not because they already know everything about the subject but because they're learning about it for the first time. If you want so say something like "equalizers are linear filters" in the third paragraph be my guest, but don't do it sooner because that is an intimidating, potentially alienating term and this is and encyclopedia, not a reference manual for audio engineers.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't bad at all, but I'd just like to point out (as I sort have been saying) that in an attempt to make the lede very accessible it has been made technically incorrect:

loudness of pitches

should be replaced with something like "tonal balance" which I believe is a technically correct use of those terms, if not "frequency response" which is absolutely correct. The terms loudness and pitch are used incorrectly, as you can see from their proper definitions in their respective articles. So in the attempt to make the lede accessible, it has actually become inaccurate and to anyone who already knows something about the term they are looking up (most of the people who type into a search box) those words sound like they were written by a child. It actually reads better if you just start reading from the second paragraph. - Interferometrist (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, better? Unless you are only making the most minuet of adjustments, you adjust pitch when you adjust frequency. But I understand your apprehension. Heartless, heartless engineer!--Atlantictire (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we can't say pitch, can we please please please keep the word "loudness"? I still think using tone is a very bad idea because you'd have to chop up the sentence in the way I have in the second paragraph, and I think it's really important to keep the first sentences as subject-verb-object as possible.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No: "you adjust pitch when you adjust frequency" (response) is NOT what I understand "pitch" to mean. When you tune a guitar string, you are changing the pitch of a note. When you put a blanket over the guitar and play that same note, you are NOT changing its pitch, but you are changing the TONE (harmonic content) or TIMBRE of the sound. Like an organ where you can tune it (to change its pitch) or adjust the stops (or the setting of the instrument that it is emulating): that affects the frequency content (mixture of harmonics) and may well be implemented by passing the original tone through an equalization (or wave-shaping) circuit.

"Loudness" is often taken to be synonymous with "volume" which is often synonymous with the setting of GAIN (the proper term). But I was pointing out that this commonplace definition of loudness is NOT the correct technical description of the word. And that will become clear when I get around to writing the paragraph of loudness compensation switches which are a form of equalization that belongs in the article (related to "smiley face" eq). - Interferometrist (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pitch is what you perceive to be the fundamental frequency of a tone or complex sound. Period. Thasit. Researchers quantify pitch by playing a "sound" (like a note on a guitar) for someone and then asking that person to turn a nob on a pure tone generator until he hears the tone that matches the pitch of the guitar note. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with timber. Timber has to do with frequency spectrums (think vocal tract or wah pedal). I suppose equalization can change a frequency spectrum as well, but it doesn't necessarily always do that.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you seem to have it exactly backwards. An equalizer cannot possibly change pitch. It absolutely changes timbre. It changes the spectrum, the relative amplitude of the frequency components. You play a note which is composed of a fundamental pitch and its harmonics (= overtones). Changing the equalization changes the relative amplitude of the harmonics because it changes the frequency response. It does NOT change the frequencies themselves, just their relative strengths. To change the frequencies (pitch) you can slow down a turntable, for instance. To change their relative amplitudes you use an equalizer such as a tone control or a wah-wah pedal (same as a parametric equalizer set to a Q of 10 or so and varying the center frequency). So an equalizer changes a system's frequency response, so that it will change the "tone" or "timbre" or "frequency content" but not the frequencies present. And since you pointed out that "tone" is not a concise term among musicians, we can hardly avoid the word "frequency" when talking about what an equalizer does. Interferometrist (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know but I don't see how making precise adjustments to an extremely narrow band of frequencies is changing the timbre?!?! Timbre is the quality of a sound: a C# sounding like it was played on a flute rather than a guitar. Like pitch, it's perceptual, and changing timbre is making a something sound as if it had been produced by a different sound source. You'd have to make some awfully radical changes in order to achieve a change in "timbre", so it's much more likely that what you do with equalization will be perceived as making some pitches louder.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You confuse me. We're not talking about an extremely narrow band of frequencies but over a broad band, up to 10 octaves, perhaps with a resolution of 1/3 octave (using a 30 band equalizer), but usually much coarser (except with a parametric equalizer set to a higher Q). Experiment: take a radio playing music or talking, and put a blanket over it. That changes the tone (removes the higher frequencies). Now take the blanket off and just turn the treble way down. That has a similar effect. I don't know what you want call it, but the technical term is that the frequency spectrum has been altered; one would say that the system producing it (including the speaker and blanket) has changed its frequency response. Thus equalization. - Interferometrist (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point is the changes you make with equalization are likely to be perceived as changes in the volume of various pitches... not changes in timbre. A change in timbre would mean something sounded as if it came from an entirely different sound source... I mean I guess technically you could call any changes to the frequency content changing the timber... but those changes will not be perceived as coming from, say, a different bass guitar. It will still be the same bass guitar, only some of the notes are a little quieter.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes timbre has to do with more than frequency spectrum, as does "tone", which is why I advocated just using the proper terms and defining them as needed. But no, it isn't simply that the relative volume/loudness/amplitude/power of different notes change when you change the EQ (unless you have an instrument which only consists of pure tones as a flute might approximate), but rather the harmonic content. Like the example I gave of putting a blanket over the radio's speaker: it changes the spectrum (reducing the higher frequencies, not unlike turning down the treble control). Playing a single guitar note (a single pitch) in that case will still be recognizable as a guitar (if the blanket isn't too thick) but will sound different because the harmonic content has been altered, and that degradataion can be undone with an equalizer. The blanket WILL change the relative volume/loudness/amplitude/power between a low note and a high note (high pitch), but more importantly it will make EACH note sound different, and that is ONLY because of the harmonics present (it wouldn't make a pure sine wave sound different, just weaker). - Interferometrist (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the lead to front-end mention of linear filters. NO. We're not gonna start talking about tone right away. You will confuse the hell out of a lot of people who think of tone as strictly pitch, or who think tone also has something to do with distortion and fuzz pedals. There are back and forth fights on WP all the time over that bloody word.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I think it reads a lot better! And no, I never said that the term "tone" needed to be used except that the bass and treble on a stereo are known as "tone controls" but that's just a name. Now that we have that out of the way, I think the second paragraph could be made a little more precise. In particular, I believe that tone controls must have predated the profession of audio engineering, and were not called equalization because that concept hadn't really been invented. Of course what I just said isn't exactly contradicted by the text. Maybe I'll try a quick edit of that paragraph. - Interferometrist (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a lot of adverb-y, subordinating conjunction-y, clause-laden background information I as someone who just wants to know what the hell this thing is does not care about. Moved it to history. You absolutely must keep in mind that, unlike the people who edit Wikipedia, the majority of planet Earth comes here to learn about something for the first time. This means they just want subject-verb-object sentences telling them what the blasted thing is and what it does.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely the first time in my professional life either writing for a journal or for Wikipedia that I have been accused of using too many clauses or adverbs in order to accurately express an idea. Moreover if that had been the problem then you would have kindly showed me how to say those things without those modifiers rather than just relegating it to "history" which it absolutely was not. If you really insist on that language not being in the lede then I will add a new section to include what equalization means. - Interferometrist (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. I was reading through the offending paragraph and could only find 3 adverbs. How many did you count? The paragraph you replaced it with has 2 adverbs. I'm trying really hard to figure out why my adverbs are so much worse than yours :-( Interferometrist (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. I have no doubt you'll get the hang of it. Rule of thumb: "is" and "are" are excellent verbs. "Equalizers are..." "Equalization is used for..." When beginning a sentence especially, subordinating conjunctions and adverbs are, generally speaking, bad things, but embedded clauses, in terms of readers' patience, can be be even worse.(<---example of dreadful sentence). Just make sure your sentences are sleek and linear... not these things that zig zag back and forth and spiral around in the center. :)--Atlantictire (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

71.168.165.167 removed the following from External links section:

• WikiRecording's Guide to Equalization

Here's an archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111001045405/http://www.wikirecording.org/EQ.

Doesn't appear to be worth recovering. ~KvnG 13:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Equalization (audio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100131065338/http://www.wikirecording.org:80/EQ to http://www.wikirecording.org/EQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equalization (audio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131202221704/http://www.mackie.com/technology/perkinseq.html to http://www.mackie.com/technology/perkinseq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equalization (audio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820194319/http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/glossary/t--BritishEQ to http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/glossary/t--BritishEQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203021159/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul01/articles/equalisers1.asp to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul01/articles/equalisers1.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing wording

From the introductory section: ″A plot of the system's net frequency response would be a flat line, as its response at any frequency would be equal to its response at any other frequency″. This is an example of pen-pushing. Please, correct for the sentence to appear more meaningful. What this "other frequency" is? "Its" - whose?

"Response", "opposite response", "net response" - what are those? In this case, more details needed, despite it's a preamble. Skim the fat and make the article more friendly. We, readers, don't need your expert-level knowledge, we need a better understanding. Consider that when phrasing your sentences. Scrutinizer798 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

please remove the part about "tape hiss"

this is absolutely NOT why equalisation is used in analogue tape recording. I, or somebody else, will be along when we've more time to explain what it's actually present for, but it has nothing to do with hiss.

duncanrmi (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)