EQ's... why doesnt everybody have one?

To answer the question of this thread: because many people prefer to spend "several thousand dollars in assembling a perfectly linear system in perfectly linear room". Doing it with a $200 equalizer "at %>.01 20Hz-40kHz" would be too easy.

"....and in my opinion, accomplishes the task better than any room design could no matter how well engineered." Oh well, looks like this EQ will be putting companies like Rives out of business. Sure glad I did not send my check to them this week to get a room analysis done.

So when I decide to go with this EQ, any suggestions on the additional IC I should purchase?

Eldartford: Yes I realize that. But such a correction is not going to happen with a $100-200 unit without destroying a whole heck of a lot elsewhere in the chain. And this too is why I would like to try a PARC in my system.

Robm321: I too have not tested any of this but I know the destruction that just a cheapo IC can do when inserted from my line stage (Aesthetix Callisto Sig) to my amps (CAT JL-3 Sig). So I would expect far worse with an electronic instrument with penny-priced integrated circuits, capacitors, resistors, horribly regulated power supply and such.

What we ultimately might gain from a flatter frequency response, and thus perhaps more clarity and less muddiness, could also result in a great loss of many other refinements, e.g., low-level resolution, harmonic textures, etc. For me, these latter sonic attributes get me more attached to the music than having a perfect frequency response.

I have recently added 4 ASC tube trap columns behind my Soundlab speakers. The added degree of clarity in the mids and trebles brought on by this caught me off guard. And I lost none of the magic in my system that I had before. I plan to plot several response curves of my room with varying ASC traps and their locations to reduce the bass peaks as much as I can. Then I can evaluate the possibility of any added benefits from an active device like the PARC. And ultimately if the PARC does bring on even more clarity due to bass peaks reduction, but it interferes with the openness, textures and dimensionality that I had before, I will have to make a judegement call as to which way to go. Perhaps on some music material the benefits of the PARC will be the way to go and other times, not at all. Hearing how it sounds in bypass mode will be important too as there will be another pair of ICs in the loop even during this time.

I think we each need to determine this all for ourself. I just happen to be a decays and ambience fanatic and I do not want to lose what I have worked so hard to attain.

John

Eldartford: Yes, I agree. And I would be willing to give the DEQ a fair shot. But I must admit I would go into this with low expectations.

Like anyone else, I have had several events, a few with local audiophile buddies, where I came out highly impressed from an auditon/test that started with me expecting very little or no positive outcome. And from such times, I am quick to give high praise to such a product. But I have also had enough auditions where the result was terrible, whether I expected it or not and the unit was immediately removed, never to be given a second chance.....it indeed was that terrible.

In the case of the DEQ, I have no doubt the benefits that it would bring. What would concern me here is what harm might it cause in the process. Surely it degrades the sound to some degree. My gut feeling is that the degradations would be in areas where tube-based systems excel.

Interestingly, the line stage and its cable to the amps have proven time and time again to be a VERY critical link in the chain ... and this is exactly where the DEQ or PARC would be placed. Any direct experiences or insights here to this specific concern of sonic degradation?

John

Concerning the Rives, I have playing with one between an Aesthetix Callisto Signature and either CAT JL-3 or Wolcott P220 amps. IC's to/from the Rives are Purist Dominus. With simply using the Bypass switch on the Rives, there is a significant improvement with the unit in the loop. The reduction of the bass peaks brings on a huge clarity especially in the mids. However, when I remove the Rives and the one Purist Dominus IC from the system, there is a substantial increase in dynamic contrasts. I can only imagine the far greater losses with other less resolving ICs. Speakers here are SoundLab A1s.

In the context of a top-notch music based system, the Rives is a tough sell in the final analysis unless you have no other options to resolve the bass peaks with room improvements. In the context of a home-theatre based system, the Rives would be very welcome as it cleans up so much of the mids and the final last bit of loss in dynamics would not be an issue for me. Highly recommended but very system dependent.

John

Kal, the dynamic contrasts difference was in the mids and trebles, primarily in percussion. It was quite significant.

If the Callisto had a tape loop where I could "enable" the Rives through a tape monitor switch, this would make it more workable (in the context of my system) with music that had much bass energy and thus benefitted from the Rives. But without the tape monitor feature, I have to insert the unit between preamp and amp. This latter connection results in the unit always being in the signal path with all its added connections, bypass switch and the added IC. At this level of system resolution, it all so quickly adds up.

Drubin, my observation of much added midrange clarity was with the Rives hooked up to the system (with the second Purist Dominus cable) toggling the bypass switch. As noted, the unit "active" (not bypassed) was a significant benefit. It was when it was entirely removed from the system (including the second IC) was then the system had more explosive life on the top. If there is one strength of Purist cables, it is their portrayal of dynamics. And the same is true for the CAT amps - I have heard no other amps do it like these. Put these two together and once you get used to this, it is very evident when it is lost.

Both noted changes were significantly for the better, just in different ways. It would be up to the user to decide which was the ideal solution. My dear friend, and long time A'gon contributor, Jadem6, was at my home when we went through all these tribulations, and our conclusions were the same: do all you can to fix your room so as not to require such a unit at all. But until then, enjoy the benefits of the unit if it does not do much harm to the presentation. This will be entirely system and source (type of music or movies) dependent.

And the comments by Sit are right on. So much of my favorite music is unlistenable because the poor recordings sound worse and worse as my system has improved. Quite an unfortunate dichotomy.

John

Cinematic_systems: Your comments are fascinting and may have some validity to other systems, but they do not apply to my previous statements.

You came to some conclusions that I hope to clarify. The preamp here is Aesthetix Callisto and Io.....these are not at all in the bright zone. The DAC is the Manley Ref DAC....this is even more of a warm presentation and a softer top. Speakers are SoundLab A1...bright? I don't think so! Been there done that with Thiels. Amps are Wolcotts and CATs. The Wolcotts are also a warm sounding amp. The CATs have resolution and dynamic contrasts few other amps can even begin to approach. But they are not forward in any sense of the word unless you pair them with any number of components that themselves are bright and non-linear. And Purist Dominus cables bright? Not! Again, that's Nordost and Straightwire.

As a huge fan of rock music from the late 60s to early 80s, there were a handful of bands whose LP recording qualities stood way out from the crowd: Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, Supertramp, Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan .... even the Robert Plant solo LPs. In the grand scheme of things, I would have rated all these a 9-10 out of 10 in recording quality. The vast majority of the rest of the music I liked so much from this time, I would have set the recording quality in the 6-7 range.

As my system has improved, the recordings that got the 9-10 ratings have retained their ratings. But many that I may have given 6's, 7's or 8's before, I would rate a level or two below. Why? Well it has nothing to do with my system becoming more forward and bright.

The higher rated recordings are even more impressive today than I imagined before. In other words, for those great recordings, I can hear even more information, portrayal of space, ambience, etc., then I ever could have imagined before. And on the lesser recordings, they have not improved to the same degree. If a recording was piss-poor from the start, any improvements in the playback system can not do much to resuscitate it from the dead. And that's the point, against the great recordings now, these poor recordings sound dull and lifeless. Again, they have not gotten worse - the others have simply gotten far better.

My reference point has shifted to clearly confirm what I felt before, but now the differences are even greater. LPs from Jethro Tull, Aerosmith, ELP, etc., have more resolution than before but they continue to fail miserably in the dimensionality and soundstage areas. And thus they fall even farther back from the pack than the phenomenol recordings I mentioned. Once we hear the clarity of the percussion, the separation of the musicians, the sound go way behind and to the sides of the speakers, sax and piano notes decay much longer than ever before, etc., on the great recordings, we realize more than ever what is missing on those other recordings.

Throwing an equalizer into the mix can indeed help tonality issues, peaks and valleys, and ultimately allow other things to become more clear that were previously obscured by obsessive peaks elsewhere. But such devices can not bring decays, ambience, harmonic textures, etc., back to the listening experience if they were not there already.

John

Onhwy brings up a point which I understand well here. The term "unlistenable" was indeed overly harsh on my point. Yes, it is a matter of semantics and taking things literally. A better way for me to have said this would have been, "less desirable". I listen too all of my music otherwise I pass it on to local used shops to buy other music. Let's face it: what we may have liked so much before is not necessarily what we are "into" today. But clearly, some of my music gets more attention because it does draw me more into the performance.

I remember so vividly one night when I put on a Rush LP I had not listened to for a year or two. There was simply so much more going on in the background with the percussion that I had not heard before in my home with this song which I do not recall the title. I had seen Rush twice in concert and knew Neil Pert's talent. But it was that night that brought this talent to the forefront in my home. It's all about the emotional involvement here and it was right there for me that instant. Up to that time, the sound was just that, sound. Now I had a master percussionist in my room.

As for Eldartford's comment, hopefully the recording engineers did not manipulate the result to compensate for the mass-market of listening devices that severely clip off the top octaves. Obviously many musicians out there take great pride in the sonic quality of their product as their recording quality are excellent time after time and often it's a very different recording engineer and/or studio that made each product. They simply go the extra mile to more accurately simulate the real performance rather than push the guitar to one channel only, the keyboards to entirely the other channel and calling it a day; and all we end up hearing is a severely poor facsimile of the real thing. If this is the case, a Bose Wave radio is all I need to hear my favorite music and there's no need for me to call on the services of professionals like Cinematic_systems to help me place my speakers, deal with room nodes, reflections, etc.

There are many threads on A'gon that discuss the improvements of re-released material simply for the sake of the recording quality. I have to believe this is because the sonic quality indeed plays a part to one's enjoyment of the music.

As for mexican food and ulcers, well this hits home for me. I lived in Tucson for many years and absolutely loved the food. But 15 years later, I love it as much but the heartburn kicks in an hour or so later. Oh the perils of getting old.

John