@ellajeanelle , I read a lot of mastering forum threads because basically I tone shape and great insights for the “next step” beyond mastering, post production tone shaping to taste at home, can be gleaned from these threads. Also, you read about the best analog gear and digital plugins here too. Mixing spills into this talk as well and it involves more narrow Q notch like correction. You will read here that digital EQ usually favored for this phase. But for final tonal touches in the mastering phase, so many engineers will tell you the best analog boxes can’t be beat. Indeed it’s common knowledge in these circles that passive EQ broad Q filter boosts for air band are THE best way to cure an overly digital sounding mix.
So I’ve got some conclusions and parallels for home EQ from all of this. My readings and experiences tell me that 1. One must never conflate room corrective EQ with tonal EQ. 2. Like mixing, room corrective EQ should be done digitally. And 3. Broader based EQ for tonal adjustments will always sound better with great analog gear, in my opinion studio balanced hardware EQ, than digital.
Equalizer in a Hi Fi system
Just curious to hear everyone’s opinions on using an equalizer in a high end hi fi system. Was at work tonight and killing time and came across a Schitt Loki max $1500 Equalizer with some very good reviews. What are some of the pros / Benefits and cons in using one. Just curious. BTW. I’m talking about a top of the line. Hi end equalizer. Mostly to calm some high frequencies and some bad recordings.
Showing 50 responses by tlcocks
Right now listening to Daft Punk - Random Access Memories as follows: Matrix X Sabre 3 dac streamer > Charter Oak analog balanced hardware PEQ-1 > Headamp GSX-Mini > HEKse. |
@mirolab , any experience with Hendyamps Michelangelo? This piece looks extremely compelling to me. |
Just watched/listened to the HM in action through my headphones on YouTube. I am SEDUCED! What a fascinating and amazing sounding unit! It’s hard to make it sound ‘wrong’. Much like my Charter Oak. But with the tube saturation effect making it a very different beast. I can tell with high quality mic in the video and over my HEKse that the High and Air bands are to die for. I will end up buying one of these. I just know it. Even though I absolutely love my CO. Ah, the fun of exploring studio EQ hardware. 🎶🎧😁 |
The following just a really good example of the kind of stuff you’ll read on a sound engineer mastering thread: ”Got my Hendy Michelangelo a few weeks ago... it's beautiful looking in real life, the front panel is electric blue and the dials kinda sparkle like a nice watch face in the right light. Built like a tank but still with a quirky DIY ethos at it's core. I changed the knobs to EMI Stockli ones and it looks perfect to me now! |
HA! Found in this thread a direct comparison to my Charter Oak: ”Very interested in this. I have a Charter Oak PEQ-1which is similar in process of using (stereo "feel" eq for broad strokes). I'd love to compare the 2. PEQ-1has such a wonderful hi sheen and can really fill in the low mids. Both are same price too, but completely different build with the HendyAmps being tube. Anyone have the chance to compare the 2?” Response: ”I have used both units but not side by side.... |
@mirolab , you’ll find the above interesting, as you’ve heard the Charter Oak |
The Michelangelo thread a Gearspace is amazing. Lot of great discussion also on digital vs analog. Another great quote: ”Agree with that 100%. Indeed nowadays some plugins "emulations" (aiming for analog color) are sounding quite great (and some free plugins are quite amazing tbh) but in a "real world mixing or mastering job" most of the times Plugins are still sounding "too much", or "too muddy", or "too bright" etc etc, where Hardware is still much more forgiving and musical. Too many time I end up bypassing plugins, where analog always stays on ” |
I have called about the used Charter Oak PEQ-1. It’s the right serial number. Deming era. I own 2 already. I am likely going to scoop it up, as it’s the best sounding studio stereo program EQ I’ve ever heard. That is, unless @mirolab wants it. Miro…? |
@mirolab , can you or anyone else enlighten me on how sound engineers can run several pieces of gear in series in their chain, sometimes like 8, and not have to worry about degradation of signal. This is as opposed to we audiophiles worrying about only one extra box in the chain. If I chained 3 pro EQs together and did mids on one, air band another, etc. would I have viable result? Or do the pros use special consoles for daisychaining that prevents degradation? It’s common practice to use a few EQs in the production process! |
Actually never mind, @mirolab. The dealer at Guitar Center called and gave me my requested test results. I asked for a number of things to be done. There is disproportionate hiss in right channel. It’s audible with quieter passages of music. That’s not acceptable to me. I asked them to service it and get back with me. We’ll see. But not now. Sticking with the Michelangelo buildout. And my 2 wonderful Charter Oaks. |
Room correction has NOTHING TO DO with tone adjustment to personal preferences. Nothing. Please read the thread for more info on this. These recent posts are more about the merits of pro balanced analog gear for tonal adjustments. For room correction go back many pages and read @mijostyn et al posts. |
@ellajeanelle , if I may comment. I know you’re talking to @jtcf. Putting your ear up to the tweeter and hearing hiss that’s low enough shouldn’t be a deal breaker. If you have quality hi fi gear with low noise floor a slight uptick in hiss from an equalizer may be acceptable. Particularly if the music sounds BETTER with the EQ and the hiss is NOT HEARD when listening to, for example, quiet passage in classical work of well recorded piano solo. Yes, with my CO I hear low level hiss vs bypass when ear is literally on tweeter. But so what? When I play classical or piano record fairly loud (like 50% on my Bryston amp) I DON’T hear hiss from listening position. Can toggle EQ in and out and no obvious change in noise. Low is low. It’s worth the gain in tonality, harmonics and timbre you get from EQing. Look, I had a dead silent phono pre that I got rid of for a noisier Graham Slee Ascension phono pre that sounds way way better. It’s the same thing. In the end, only you can decide how much hiss is acceptable. I play Yiruma great piano recordings for people and they are amazed at what I can do to improve the way that instrument sounds through my system with high end analog balanced EQ. Remember balanced when the music is playing helps tremendously with noise floor also. If I put my ear at the speaker while playing music will I hear any added hiss? Really doubtful I’ll hear or notice. But I might get tinnitus or an earache! |
@mirolab , the process you described is AMAZING in its intricacies and elaborateness. I would LOVE to spend a day watching mixing and mastering in a real studio!🎶 |
“Thanks to both of you for the info on the EQ. I am definitely going to do more serious research into the API equalizers. It may sound picky, and you can call it girl stuff, but I want them in black and no rack mount ears, or removable ears. Only one of them will be going on a rack, the others not. I like everything to match! “
|
“tlcocks No offense to you or anyone but I gave Schitt a try by buying 3 components for a guest room and all 3 had issues of some sort and had to return them all. Horrible customer service and subpar product in my opinion, and yes I am talking about their so-called top of the line stuff. The saying you get what you pay for definitely applies to Schiit based on my own personal experience with them. As far as well regarded, as you mentioned, definitely not to me. Perhaps as paper weights. To anyone reading this, if you enjoy and are happy with your Schitt products, congratulations and enjoy, just don't try to convince me, because I won't even respond. They have made my permanent "never buy again list", together with other companies which I will not mention for the sake of not initiating a back-and-forth and time-consuming discussion in vain. Peace...” Amen, sister!! Offense?? Are you kidding me?! @ellajeanelle , you are singing to the choir! I’ve been saying this the whole thread. You just say it better! Schitt is sh*t!
|
Op amps are bad as a blanket statement is NOT TRUE. My Charter Oak has op amps in circuit and is the best pro studio EQ hardware I’ve ever had the pleasure of hearing in my home. And I’ve heard several. It’s all in the implementation and the quality of parts used. Like the old saying goes, the devil’s in the details. 😊🎶 |
@jtcf , I am so happy the API has worked out so well for you. Furthermore, am happy for the others who have dared to try pro analog EQ or MQ112, branching out from the Schiit products, and being richly rewarded! This has been an illuminating forum for many. I am so glad. 😊🎶 |
So one of my Charter Oaks is in the early stages of age related decline. But it’s still good for now. But naturally, being the EQ freak that I am, I’ve decided on a replacement for it. I’m having Hendyamps build a SS version of their famous tube EQ the Michelangelo. Don’t wanna mess with tubes. I’ve bought it and am just waiting. Absolutely cannot wait to hear it and compare it to my CO PEQ-1 and report to y’all!😊🎶 |
And no, I’m not guardian of the thread. Just very passionate about what I am hearing with the gear I’ve acquired. A great studio analog EQ in a hifi rig is a sound to behold. And no, they’re not all great. Like anything else to achieve greatness takes time and patience. When you get to the point that you are not only adding tone but also stage size and resolution as opposed to LOSING those things with cheaper or inferior implementations then it becomes really exciting to listen. Every single time. I WANT to get that jacked over someone demoing a properly implemented DSP and crossover. Still waiting to find that demo. But right now I LOVE what I’m hearing and have for 10 years now. Have other friends here doing it this way and they’ll tell you the same thing. |
Oh I’m not closed minded to hearing it all. I’ve said that many times I want @mijostyn or you or someone to put me in touch with a good demo. Always exploring. The journey never ends. I was impressed by BACCH preamp. I’d love to be impressed by DSP to. Happy to hear and compare! |
No, demo opportunity never came. I’m in Florida. I’d drive. So sorry my gear is not formally listed. I have listed it like 3 times in this thread. It’s Auralic Aries streamer via high quality Bryston dig coax > Bryston B135 Integrated SST2 with onboard delta sigma 24/192 decoding DAC > Transparent cabling > Martin Logan Montage. The integrated pre has a completely transparent tape loop which houses the Cgarter Oak PEQ-1 connected with four Cardas Clear Sky custom wired RCA to XLR. On the XLR end, pin 3 is grounded to pin 1. Pin 2 is hot. Works flawlessly. |
“ If not your EQ device becomes a sonic factor in itself as something that contributes to the sound, and not in a good way.” Wrong. A great analog studio EQ can and does add its own special color sauce if you will which can be all improvements, no drawbacks. That’s obvious to sound engineers. If you want to hear it from them do some reading on Gearspace. That’s where I get all my great ideas on EQ. |
“What setups have you heard with the implementation of DSP (not necessarily meant as a total lineup, but just some examples), and in which capacity were the DSP sections used - merely as a digital crossover, only digital room correction, or both?” Ive yet to hear DSP as room correction, as speaker timing corrective, or as crossover function. I have only tried some tone curves with Roon and Auralic DSP among others similar to that. And Neutron media player. All digital parametric. But just bass and treble custom tone curves. Not all the above. As I mused on this previously, I will muse on it again. I wonder what it would be like to optimize the room first, then do room and speaker timing correction with DSP. Then lastly have an analog piece that is great sounding for bass and treble shaping which has hardwire bypass for full circuitry bypass when not needed. |
“It’s important to get an overall bearing of the setup contexts here to get fuller picture and what was the deciding factor to account for your less than enthusiastic response to these setups. I would say the DSP’s themselves used in the setups you heard, depending on their specific implementation, are likely the lesser sonic influence compared to a variety of many other factors. It’s about how they’re used, component specifics, and overall implementation.” it’s important not to conflate bass and treble tone shaping EQ with room correction. The former is better sounding (by far) with analog. The latter is only properly executed with DSP, with its minute amplitude options and infinite possibilities with narrow notch filtering |
Yeah but notice I’m not slamming or poo pooing DSP. I am simply speaking to how beautiful the right analog implementation sounds. Your talk about my experience condescending though. Again, I was impressed by BACCH and am open to hearing the manner of DSP you implement. Again, don’t conflate tone adjustment (broad) with room correction (narrow). My only point here is to get Loki users to try pro analog. You do you. I’ll do me. |
You confuse passionate as arrogance. I have yet to meet a DSP advocate as passionate here as I’ve been. That should tell you something. But I’ll admit I’ve only done some bass and treble shelf boosts and compared them instantaneous A-B to my analog piece and all the digital implementations were sonically inferior. Flat 2-D lifeless. Not unlike how people compare solid state to the holographism of tubes. But listen, hey, I admit I haven’t heard the best DSP has to offer. But I want to. |
“I take it they're mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. ”
|
@mahgister , your ‘natural’ method, while impractical and unsightly to wives, is certainly fascinating. I have no doubts you are maximizing sonic returns on the gear you have. |
"Special color sauce" pretty much tells it like it is, and whether such a flavor is a benefit is obviously system dependent, a matter of synergy or personal taste instead of being a desirable trait or character sought in every case and system context. you are missing the point a bit. The best analog EQ boxes are simply amazing sounding and extremely musical and resolute. Many a mastering engineer says just passing a signal through the box set on flat but EQ in makes everything sound better. With the right box, you can make your system sound whatever way you want tonality wise all the while enhancing the hi fi charteristics we all pay attention to: timbre, image specificity, staging, resolution, PRaT, etc. The term “color “ loses its negative connotation in such a context and the term actually becomes irrelevant. Great and right sounding is great and right sounding. Period. You don’t know until you’ve tried. I can tell you that with one of these EQs picks, fret slides, breathes, pedal clunks, all the micro and macro resolution is there in spades. And for all of you with the Loki Max thinking you know what I’m talking about, you don’t. You think you’re hearing what you should be getting, but you have no idea. LM has been in my system and fell woefully short of my PEQ-1. Returned it the next day. Piece of “Schiit” in comparison! |
At this point I would repost what @dgarretson said on page 10 to further build upon what I just said: ” I have nothing to add to this interesting discussion except for another vote for the Manley Massive Passive. I purchased the latest version with switching power supply, initially to complement a custom speaker with a Purify 6.5" mid woofer and matching passive radiators that handle LF boost well enough to produce high quality bass to 30hz. Over time I’ve used all bands of the Manley with excellent results. After break-in and experience on how to optimize its relatively complex and sometimes counter-intuitive controls, the Manley piece has become an essential component. It is a bit fiddly to tweak, and once set up properly, wants mostly to be left alone. It has a clean, open sound with tube characteristics that don’t sound "toobie." No hiss on top. Of course it is well vetted by mastering pros-- which encouraged me to skip past lots of cheaper solutions. I’ll add that at this level of performance, a studio equalizer is a seductive and cost-effective opportunity to improve a system without endless component and cable swaps. Perhaps an endpoint. Esoteric K-O1x w/Rubidium clock>SOtM>AtmaSphere MP-1 or Goldpoint balanced passive>Pass XA-160.8 monos or modified BAT VK-75SE.” |
“Question: electrically speaking, can I run balanced equalizer into a tube amp and boost the signal without damaging tubes or amp? Cannot find a definitive review of this topic anywhere online. “
|
Powerful but a teeny bit "dangerous" without perhaps a little notch EQ down or upstream when mastering in the 200-500 region. Mid cuts seem nice, but I prefer the additive properties of this box.