I love EQ, and have several studio eqs, but I really only keep one on the output of my phono preamp, for eq'ing vinyl playback. My eq of choice right now is the Vintage Audio M3D Skyline. It's a 6 band EQ with very wiiiide bands for minimal phase shift. Plus it has hardwire bypass, and has balanced I/O only.
@tlcocks I owned the Charter Oak PEQ-1 for several years when it first came out. I loved the sound of the bands, and the way it operated, but the unit was not totally transparent, even when in bypass. It's not a true hardwire bypass.
@sudnh So having an EQ is not high end? REALLY? So what about all the mediocre vinyl pressings that I have, that I can make sound amazing by restoring the lost low frequencies, or re-shaping the highs?? Am I supposed to suffer with mediocre playback in the name of purism and following your "high-end" rules against EQ?
Yes, I've read years and years of Stereophile and Absolute Sound diatribe, and always hated that they vilifyied EQ. Look.... I know I've got a great system with good room acoustics, because when I play well recorded, well mastered records, my system sounds perfect. But when I put on a record that has about 5 dB of lows rolled off to accommodate 20 minutes per side, why should I have to live with that? I know I can make it BETTER.... Yes I said it.... EQ can make it BETTER, even though I am putting more circuitry in the signal path! Sorry if that offends the purists. (actually.... No.... not sorry).
|
Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past.
@mijostyn This is the kind of negative energy towards EQ that I’ve been railing against for years. Basically you’re telling every mastering engineer in the world that they can’t hear worth a darn. Don’t you realize that pretty much EVERYTHING we listen to has been mastered through (mostly analog) EQs? Unless you only listen to very niche purist recordings of jazz & classical music. Sorry... that’s not me. I don’t like that kind of music. You know that there are EQs that get used specifically BECAUSE they improve the imaging and depth of a recording. I own a Manley Massive Passive, a staple in mastering studios, and it sounds glorious! But it’s too tweaky for casual listening. The casual listener should have a single set of controls for both channels.
@tlcocks I do own a Schiit Loki, and while it’s nice, quiet, and distortion free, I’m simply too spoiled by much more expensive EQs! For me, the bands are too narrow, but I highly recommend it (for the price). Sadly, most studio EQs have separate L/R controls, and they are not fun to adjust for casual listening. That’s what’s great about the PEQ-1 or my M3D. I can dial in a great curve in about 10 seconds. BTW... I’ve talked at length with Mike Deming about the "transparency" of the PEQ-1, back when it first came out.
|
It does not matter how well you think you can do it analog. I can and do do it much better digitally. You might consider trying it sometime.
@mijostyn Sheesh... your condescension is deafening! I’ve had a home recording studio for 25 years, and produced/mixed over 2 dozen CDs, and mastered about as many also, as well as re-mastering for vinyl. I have at least 20 different digital EQ plug-ins, so YES I know VERY well what digital EQ sounds like, and they all sound a bit different.
But a digital EQ requires the conversion from A/D-D/A, and if I’m playing back LPs, that’s the last thing I want to do. Plus..... turning knobs is FUN. Pressing buttons on a digital EQ is not nearly as fun as tweaking knobs in realtime to find the sweet spot while playing back.
For mixing and mastering, automation and recall... I use digital EQs all day long... but that’s for audio that’s already in the digital domain. My M3D is for pleasure listening.
Eq’s destroy the phase relationships in the signal. There can be rare times when the benefits outweigh the downside.
@lloydc Destroy? Really? I ’might’ agree with that IF I were listening to a purist 2-microphone stereo recording of of something. But I never listen to any music like that. I listen to studio produced rock, jazz, pop, funk, punk, dance, new age, new wave whatever. Phase relationships be dammned! Look... I mix drum kits with 10 microphones on it... I know about phase relationships, and it’s not the EQ that’s destroying them! So what do you do when you encounter a recording that is thin in the bass? Do you suffer with it? Or do you just never play it again? That's sad, when more bass is just one knob away!
@tlcocks As for my talks with Mike Deming, he simply felt that the ’coloration’ of the PEQ-1 was favorable in some way, and I disagreed. I have a Great River EQ-2NV, and many times... simply passing a mix through it (set flat) makes it sound better. Same for the Massive Passive (tube EQ). These are studio tools that can make things sound better (sometimes). No, I don’t have an arsenal of gear.... just a cool modest home studio that allows me to be creative.
|
@tlcocks I finally read your earlier posts, and info on your PEQ-1, and it really makes me believe I had a lemon unit. Mine was a very early production unit, and I had to send it back initially for a couple wiring errors. Then months later an op-amp went noisy, and needed to be replaced, so I think my unit was sub-par. I really did love the way the bands sounded, and the switchability of the center frequencies. It's something I miss in the Skyline M3D. If only my PEQ1 had the transparency I was looking for.... which you claim it DOES have! I think mine was just not a good one.
As for the Skyline M3D... the low end is glorious.... I can really fill out missing lows from my 70's+80's LP's. I do wish it had a sub-filter. The high band (labelled Atmosphere) is a high shelf with 5 selectable frequencies, and you can really breathe air into a dark or dry recording. I'm not going to say the M3D is better than a "good" PEQ1... it's just different. Also... I broke the seal on the lid to look inside (as I do with everything) and it's very well done inside, and the unit is very heavy for its size. The only caveat it that it's strictly balanced only. Do not simply throw an adapter on the output that shorts the (-) to ground.
Another unit that I bought the very day it came out is the Drawmer 1974. It's a 4-band parametric EQ with one set of controls. The unit is quiet and transparent, but the bands simply don't sound all that great, and the high shelf is not "Airy". It's really more suited to tonal shaping for mixing, rather than for mastering a full stereo mix. I had higher hopes for it, but at least it has hardwire bypass! Maybe worth it if you can find one used for a good price.
Did you see the new Macintosh 8-band EQ that just came out?
Soooo tempting!!
|
@tattooedtrackman Please report back to us your impressions of the Mac MQ112! It appears to have finer intervals down low, better for room corrections, but sacrificing control up high. I share @tlcocks concern about the leap from 3k to 10k, and that the 10k band may not have the air we seek. I never understood why the top band is a peak, rather than a shelf.
The PEQ-1's HF band is 15k-20k-50k switchable, and the M3D high-shelf is 2.5k-5k-10k-20k-40k switchable. Those controls put Mac's single 10k band to shame. The Mac has a Tilt control, so that's cool.
|
An honest question to @mijostyn :
You are pushing the superiority of Digital EQ... So what model Digital EQ would you recommend? I mean one that has knobs or sliders that I can enjoy adjusting easily and 'on-the-fly'. The only one I can think of would be the Weiss mastering EQ, but it's $6500, and is Digital I/O only.
|
@mahgister I actually love your idea of tuning the speakers to the room. Any good designer knows that the low end is EXTREMELY room dependent, and not every speaker is perfect in every room, or in every position of any room. Your tuning-straws are a great idea, if probably a bit unsightly! My oldest speakers are B&W Matrix 801-S2's, and I love them to death. In my music room, with slab foundation, the low end is tremendous, and I needed to put them on 8" stands to tame the bass. Then I flipped the furniture 180, and on the opposite wall, they sounded like a disaster. I moved them to my living room with raised wood floor, and they sound PERFECT on the floor with no stands. So how can a speaker designer align a low end response that will work in all rooms? It's impossible.
@tlcocks Yes I know of the MAAG eq, and I asked the designer if he'd make a version with ganged controls. He said no. So I will not buy a MAAG, but the Skyline M3D is very MAAG-like in its design.
|
@tattooedtrackman Congrats!! I hadn't seen your system before, but the MQ112 looks very "at home". I'm a longtime owner of Matrix 801's, and I've never heard the big 800's. I do however remember being blown away by the big 808's back in 1985.
|
Most audiophiles have no idea how musical good Hi & Lo shelving EQ can really sound because it's so poorly implemented on most HiFi gear.
Many years ago I had an NAD C165BEE preamp. Only $999, entry level hi-end, I realize, but I was shocked at how bad the tone controls sounded. Every time I turned up Bass or Treble, it instantly called attention to itself, rather than simply being part of the music.
I have a Manley/Langevin mic-preamp that has Bass & Treble shelfs, each with 2 turnover frequenices that sound amazing. I'd kill to have THESE tone controls incorporated into a hi-fi preamp. They gently shape the music without sounding phasey or electronic. Switchable frequencies is SO important too. People and/or companies seem to fear knobs and switches these days. So many preamps today are totally featureless. I don't get it.
My name, is Miro. I'm old, and I like knobs and switches.
|
An alternative to having an equaliser in the system is to take the recording into a DAW and remaster it oneself.
@yoyoyaya Yes, I do this on occasion, but it's more of an offline project, rather than simple pleasure listening. One group that I really love is Jamiroquai. They've produced 8 CDs from 1993 to 2017. But... they have a "sound" that is very rolled off in the highs. As much as I love their music, I don't love the dark sound. I imported all the CDs into my DAW, and it was very interesting to notice the increasing loudness as the years went by. The latest two CDs are sadly over-compressed.
So THEN.... I "remastered" my Jamiroquai catalog to a sound that is to my liking, and I goosed the loudness of the early records, just a bit, without sacrifice. For this I used digital plugins, of which I have many. Most likely I used Eiosis AirEQ, and the Sonnox Limiter for increased loudness. The newest album from 2017 is already too loud and bright, and is beyond any repair!! I love the music though.
It makes me sick to my stomach that we've been given this gift of tremendous resolution and dynamic range in CDs and HiRes audio, and yet the music is being distorted and compressed into 6 or 7 dB of dynamic range. But that's a topic for a whole-nuther thread!
|
A number can not be distorted. It can only be changed.
@mijostyn Yikes! THAT’s your defense of DSP superiority?? Then clearly you misunderstand what a digital stream is representing. The numbers are describing the analog waveform, and if you CHANGE the numbers, you are by definition, DISTORTING the resulting waveform. The numbers ARE the waveform! You can change the numbers in a perfectly linear fashion, as in simply changing the amplitude of the entire signal (gain, volume) --OR-- the stream of numbers can be fed through very complex equations that perform filtering operations on the signal (EQ). These equations can work really well, or really poorly. I’ve heard good ones, and certainly bad ones. There’s many many types of filtering algorithms, with new ones being devised all the time. Some are intentionally colored and vintage sounding, and some are clean and transparent.
|
Can you change the numbers to replicate distortion? I’m not sure although I do not see why not. A number can not be distorted, it can only be changed.
@mijostyn Your statement above tells me you have no experience in doing digital signal processing. You’ve admitted it! I have literally 100’s of plugins that do all manners of DSP, many of which are distortion. These are mostly used creatively in audio production and mixing.... In final 2-track mastering, you typically want very transparent EQ (but not always!). The problem with much of today’s music is that heavy compression and limiting ARE used on the final 2-bus, or stereo mix. I think it’s heavily overused.
But I’ve spent literally thousands of hours staring at audio waveforms, editing them, and processing them.... so YES, I very much understand DSP, and what a single sample (a number) represents, and what a stream of samples represents. If I change one number in the stream, the number is not distorted, but the waveform IS now distorted (when compared to the original).
@tlcocks So glad you got the Skyline working! YES it is a balanced PRO level device... not level as in quality, but level as in +4dBu rather than consumer -10dBV. Since I use it in my studio, it’s not such an issue, but right now I am using a +4 balanced to -10 unbalanced cable that I made, with 3 resistors to bring it down, and "unbalance" it. I commented to Vintage Audio years ago that they should make a consumer version of the Skyline and market it to vinyl lovers.
|
@tlcocks Sorry, if Revive audio themselves cannot tell you why their unit is finicky with certain cables, then I certainly cannot.... not without a schematic, which I'm certain they would deny me! They even put tape seals on the lid screws so if you take the lid off, you might void the warrantee. I took the lid off anyway! Do your 'custom' cables have the ground connected from end to end? Some cables have the ground terminated at only one end (like a ground lifter) which is NOT a Pro thing to do.
As for your assessment of Skyline vs. PEQ1... I very much agree about the superior flexibility of the PEQ1's design... I just wish my unit had sounded better. Let's also keep in mind the PEQ1 new, cost exactly TWICE as much as the Skyline! That makes Skyline a relative steal for what it is.
A note on the Lokius eqs.... they are not noisy, but they are more 'sensitive' due to legit L-C circuitry. They use real inductors for each band, and they will more easily pick up stray magnetic fields. You'd think Revive Audio could learn a thing or two from Schiit, on providing BOTH balanced and unbalanced I/O.
|
a brand called Golden Age Project EQ81.It's designed to distort and ad noise to simulate older recordings played through older tubed equipment.
@jtcf That's called an EQ81 because they are emulating the sound (and circuitry) of the classic Neve 1081 4-band eq. This is a 70's era Neve console EQ designed for mixing and tone shaping. This EQ has color & personality, and is really meant for mixing. It's not super transparent and does not emulate a tube eq. It's solid-state all the way. I've got a Great River EQ-2NV which is also a "Neve-alike" eq. It sounds amazing for shaping individual instruments and buses. The high & low shelfs do make good bass & treble controls for a stereo mix. The mid bands have a bit of color, but are a bit narrow for a stereo mix. Look up the original Neve 1081... it's beautiful! I've used Neve preamps, but not the 1081.
|
@tattooedtrackman Look at the SkyFi video at 49:00 and see what circuitry $3000 buys you, and then look at the Massive Passive video, and look at what $6000 buys you. There is certainly more than twice as much going on in the Manley unit!
I'm not putting down the MQ112 at all.... I'm actually considering one!
I got my MassPass used over 10 years ago, for around $2700. It sounds gorgeous, but you need 2 hands to drive it. You really want ganged controls for stereo program eq-ing.
@stonyb3165 Proclaiming that a Loki Max is all "ANYONE" needs is a bit presumptuous. You could have just said "is all I need". Other people may have different needs, or sense of aesthetics. The Loki Max would look stupid in @tattooedtrackman beautiful system. The MQ112 looks perfect!!
|
I have a home studio... not a fully decked out commercial studio. My best AD/DA converters are on my Lynx Hilo... a $2500 box for 2-channel converters. As good as they are for the money, I can still hear a generation loss if I send a full mix out of the box, and back in. So if I use analog gear, it's going to be to do something drastic or fantastic to the audio, in a creative way. I do 95% of my mixing and mastering In-The-Box. (ie. the computer)
For pleasure listening... yeah there's still no substitute for the analog EQ, both for the sound, and the speed, and fun of it. For mastering tho... I need the precision and instant recall of digital plugins. I've tried mastering through my analog gear, and as good as it is, I have more control, and get better results through my various plugins.
|
I've had the hankering for getting a new DAC, and noticed that the RME ADI-2 DAC has lots of cool features, among them being 5-bands of parametric EQ. Right now I'm using a studio equalizer only for vinyl playback, but having digital EQ right there in the DAC seems like a great way to go! It goes for $1300. I'm still deciding on it.
|
@ellajeanelle Your complaint about noisy EQ is justifiable by your comment that you’ve tried many 31-band and graphic EQs. Graphic EQs are the worst! They were designed for live sound where you need to get quick control of a room, but all those bands of narrow EQ each add noise, and phase issues.
What you want for fidelity is a studio EQ with a few bands of wide-Q for minimal phase shift. If possible, you also want ganged controls, so that you only adjust one knob for both channels. Adjusting L & R channels separately is not only a drag, but difficult to keep balanced. @tlcocks is a big fan of the Charter Oak PEQ and I’ve had great luck with the Skyline M3D. There are others, but with studio EQs, you will not get the noise that you get with 15+ band graphic EQs.
@tlcocks Til now, I didn’t know about the Hendyamps Michelangelo, but it sure looks compelling! And the same price as the new McIntosh. With 8 bands, the Mac gives you far more control of the low end, but I’d bet the highs are sweeter with the tube EQ & air band control. There's a Sound On Sound review that says this EQ has a bit of "character" which is desirable in the studio when mixing. Maybe not the best choice for a playback system however.
|
I may need to sell a few items out of my rack first, not only for the money, but to make space for a Michelangelo.
The review above is as enticing to an engineer like me, as it is horrifying to the audiophile purists out there, who are thinking, OMG... coloration!!
|
@tlcocks I'm so sad that I'd gotten a bum Charter Oak unit. Looking back thru emails, I bought it in 2011 when it first came out, and within a month I had to return it with several problems. I got it back, and it was better, but it still had issues. Mine was an early unit, but the company had just relocated, and they had production issues. That's the problem with small niche companies. Mike Deming of Charter Oak was a brilliant engineer, but keeping up with the rigors of production and growing the company was a struggle.
I'm looking forward to your experience with the Michelangelo!
|
@ellajeanelle For looks AND performance, it would be hard to beat the new McIntosh MQ112.
|
@tlcocks Thanks for checking on that PEQ-1.... Yeah I had a noise problem pop up on mine. There's an op-amp chip responsible for each EQ band and I swapped them around until I found the offending ones. I moved the noisy one from the 2k band to the Sub band and the noise wasn't noticeable down there. I got Mike to send me several new op-amps and I replaced them myself, rather than send the unit back. I also rewired the outputs, as my unit was inverting phase.... a terrible thing in a studio when you are trying to do parallel processing! Mike trusted me by then, and told me what I needed to do.
|
@tlcocks
As for stringing chains of processors together, if you read or watch anything about mixers TODAY, you can bet they are chaining digital plugins, and the noise & distortion simply does not add up like with analog gear. Also... those long chains are typically on individual instruments or group buses to achieve a particular effect. It would be rare to put more than about 3-4 things on the final stereo bus.
Although... have you heard modern mixes?? They mostly suuuuck, and the overuse of processing is a culprit. Whether analog or digital, they will (and I will) put several processors on the final stereo bus.
Take for example a typical rock mix.... I might have 50-70 tracks to work with. (not all playing at once though) But 6-10 tracks of drum mics go to the drum bus. Bass Mic & DI go to a bass bus. Maybe 4-8 or more electric guitar parts to Egtr bus. Acoustic guitars to ACG bus. Synths to Synth Bus (could be from 2 to 20 tracks). Lead vocal is likely doubled or with harmonies to LVOX bus. Background vocals to a BGV bus.... Oh yeah... let's not forget an FX return bus for all the delays and reverbs! So I've counted 8 stereo buses in this example.... and each bus has its own processing on it.... typically at least an EQ and a compressor. All these busses then sum into the 2-BUS, which might have, for example, a Tape Emulator, a bus compressor or a mulitband compressor, an EQ, and then a final limiter/enhancer. The order of all these FX also matters.... it matters a LOT! As does the gain-staging... how hard you hit each of these processors. Also don't forget that each individual track can and most likely does have some processing on it. Usually at least an EQ.... sometimes 5 or 6 things. This is why mixing is so much fun!
|
@jtcf I'm assuming you are new to API eq. API EQ's have long been a standard in studios. The most famous model 550 has stepped controls. This is both sonically superior, AND more easily & accurately recalled at a later time. This new API eq is half the price, and uses pots instead of stepped controls. I'd prefer the continuous pots anyway. So happy to hear you are enjoying it!
|
So is Audiogon's search good for ANYTHING??
I really like this thread, purely about equalizers, but if I search discussions for "equalizer" it doesn't find it.... at all! Even if I type all the words of the exact title "Equalizer in a HiFi system" it does not find it. Oops... you see my tiny mistake? I missed just ONE tiny space in the title and it did not find this thread.
This is the exact opposite of computers helping us!
|
@milpai Thanks, that's a great tip. Didn't know that.
But it does make sense. Many times the official Help within a program is lacking, and I just ask the same technical question in Google and get the answer I need. Very often there's a Youtube video showing me how to use the feature I want!
|
