Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

"Equalizing" is typically thought of as more or less elaborative tone controls as an extra measure on top of preconfigured passive speakers, and being able to attenuate a usually limited range of frequency bands. The rub mostly centers on the "extra layer" that is introduced with an equalizer, certainly as a separate component and in the analogue domain, which then messes up with the purity of the signal.

Essentially though an "equalizer" is not defined by what it usually does, how and where it's implemented or is regarded as, but rather its mere function of being able to modify a signal. This can be done in different ways and more or less intricately (/successfully), and in that sense a passive crossover is an equalizer just like a DSP/digital crossover, electronic crossover, acoustics, speaker placement, etc.

As such equalizing doesn't have to be an extra layer, but instead one that can be accessed at the very core of what is already the central "equalizing" device of the speakers; a DSP acting as a digital crossover - that is, replacing a passive ditto between the amp(s) and drivers entirely (lest not forget: the passive XO being a layer in itself that is here eradicated) - can be an extremely elaborative signal modification measure through a range of parameters that isn't only about attenuating a few, fixed frequency bands.

Indeed: why fix with limited aids as an extra, detrimental component addition when you can do it at the heart of the design with what's already there, from the listening position on the fly, and with a much broader range of parameters to boot?

@tlcocks wrote:

I won’t go into how much better (again) studio mastering analog ideally with a hardwire bypass sounds compared to DSP. Read the whole thread. This war was fought already. It’s actually a great thread. Go back and read if if you’re so inclined.

I wasn’t aware there was a war to be fought here. So what are you, a guardian of this thread who wants to be right about "studio mastering analog" being the best approach in equalizing, telling everyone who deviates from this line of thinking to put a sock into it?

Maybe you should reread what I just wrote above and think it through in terms of a suggested, different way to approach equalization, i.e.: one that involves a quality DSP - and it needn’t be a DEQX device for that to be the case, even with all the trimmings settings and parameter-wise - as a digital crossover only (with room correction being optional) for fully active configuration with several PEQ’s for each driver section with gain setting in 0.25dB increments, Q, delay, filter types and slopes, presets, etc. A digital platform gives you far more options here, and as an active approach it’s important to note that one avoids an analog layer - between the amp and drivers not least - in the form of the passive crossover.

I skimmed through most of the thread btw., and seeing how a number of people get caught up on analog devices (like the McIntosh one), where looks are apparently also important, it’s quite obvious there’s an understanding of equalization that permeates the way of thinking about it, which - apart from a conservative mindset - appears to be founded in a general disdain towards digital (and thereby DSP) and the fact that most use passively configured speakers. If that was my outset I’d get the speaker/acoustics/placement part right to begin with, and likely avoid any kind of additional, electronic equalization - be it analog or digitally based.

Being however my setup context is fully (outboard) active with a digital crossover, I have a very elaborate "equalization" device at hand as an integral part of the speaker system already, and as such am afforded the opportunity to make corrections - if I so choose - on the fly and from the listening position via my laptop.

@tlcocks wrote:

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.

Did a demo ever materialize at poster @mijostyn?

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!

An open mind is always a good outset.

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.

Are you using your studio analog EQ in conjunction with passively configured speakers (your system doesn’t show in the ’Systems’ section)? When you say it’s a "sound to behold" with such a device in your chain, I’m thinking of it as something that must excel in its relative absence of sonic imprinting, and that what you’re really describing is the sound of your setup as a whole with the frequency corrections provided via EQ. Your analog studio EQ doesn’t "create" sound; it merely acts a frequency band equalizer - added to the chain, that is - that as such will have to leave as little coloration and distortion while doing so. If not your EQ device becomes a sonic factor in itself as something that contributes to the sound, and not in a good way.

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.

You’re talking overall implementation here, and that involves every aspect along the way. Price (and frequency corrections) is only a partial factor, until is isn’t.

I WANT to get that jacked over someone demoing a properly implemented DSP and crossover. Still waiting to find that demo.

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? 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.

My own context of DSP usage is a Xilica unit acting a as digital crossover only, so no digital room correction or any passive crossovers between the amps (3 of them, one for each driver section) and speakers. The Xilica XO’s are very transparent, even with A/D to D/A conversion steps, and that becomes apparent not least when comparing their inclusion sans passive XO’s fully actively to the same speakers with passive XO’s instead. With the Xilica’s actively there’s a substantial uptick in resolution and transparency, cleaner transient "edges," improved dynamics and tonality. That’s however also much more revealing for what’s fed to it upchain, with all that implies and the care one must invest with the choices made here.

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.

Cherishing the sound of one’s setup is the primary goal. However we get there is up to each of us.

@tlcocks wrote:

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.

"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. If it works for you (and others), great. I know how much work has gotten finding into a proper tonal balance in my setup, and suddenly introducing a component with a distinct sonic flavor of its own would tip that balance and likely necessitate a re-tweaking in several areas.

Which is also to say: you may need an analog-based studio mixer to provide the sonic juice to make things fall into place for your ears; others - preference and all in mind - can make it happen via other means. 

That’s obvious to sound engineers.

To them these consoles are a necessity in the first place, and where they can will get the best. 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. 

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.

And again, lots of factors can be at play here for whatever sonic impressions you may have had with these setups and their different tone curve implementations that isn't necessarily reflective on the use of DSP itself.  

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. 

Optimizing acoustics and speaker placement is always an important and necessary outset. As for digital room in both the amplitude and time domain, try it out (the DRC FIR software comes recommended, and works well via Convolution in JRiver, though I don't currently use it). Myself I have no passive crossovers between the amps and speakers to mess up proper interfacing between them, so having crossover duties done actively prior to amplification on signal level with a quality DSP and direct connection between dedicated amp channels to their respective driver sections is a very transparent/sonically benign way that leaves vital sonic parameters to be intricately worked out here. As for your idea with analog-based tone curving to top it all out - well, why not? You only get the wiser with experience. I'd opt for less layers in the signal chain presently with only a digital crossover that handles it all, i.e.: sans digital room correction and passive crossovers. 

it’s important not to conflate bass and treble tone shaping EQ with room correction.

No arguing here. 

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

On this we don't agree however. It depends on the implementation and DSP device. 

@tlcocks wrote:

“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. ”

maybe in mixing. In mastering (most similar to our use case) analog is still felt to be superior. Although the gap is closing. Read threads on Gearspace if you want to educate yourself on what goes on in the studio. As opposed to making assumptions.

What’s so assumptive re: the quoted part of mine other than what’s clearly laid bare by me already? "I take it .." should give you a clue. And btw. I was not referring to which of the two were "superior" sounding.

"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.

Ah, a magic equalizer box then. Seriously, I’ll happily leave it to you and others to be thrilled by the mere inclusion of an analog studio mixer in an existing setup sans knob turning. Whatever floats your boat. And yet more seriously: maybe myself and other compadres don’t know any better here, just like a bunch of audiophiles (and that includes you as well) don’t know any better in regards to other aspects in home audio reproduction.

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.

Now the knobs are turning, right? And that’s just it: "With the right box.." also applies to a DSP unit, the proper implementation of which you don’t seem to know or care about, because "analog" has become the buzzword to trump digital (and conversion steps) almost by its wording alone. A quality DSP unit is a tool in the very same manner of sound "molding" you’re outlining with an analog iteration, and what a DSP might (or might not) give up in ultimate sound quality by comparison it can easily reel back in with its plethora of adjustment possibilities, and also their precision and context of configuration (active vs passive).

Keep in mind that my (and others’) context of using a DSP is fully active configuration avoiding passive crossovers (with all that entails). What you should know is that active config. is about optimizing the amp to driver interfacing - which is hardly trivial, to say the least - and from this better outset "timbre, image specificity, staging .." etc. are extremely important aspects to hone in on as well, and which we can do even more elaborately with a DSP. Forest for the trees, as they say.

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.

What tells you I haven’t tried and heard something else to know about what’s "great and right sounding"? You obviously don’t know any better about the specifics and my experiences with active DSP implementations via very different setups, so quit the arrogant and condescending barking from your local standpoint.

LM has been in my system and fell woefully short of my PEQ-1. Returned it the next day. Piece of “Schiit” in comparison!

Yeah, well - what can I say that I have not said before.

@tlcocks wrote:

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).

I’m not conflating anything here. Broad- and narrowband equalization is bandwidth differentiated, yes, but the simple fact is you’re confined to broadband filters with analog, and I’m not with DSP - meaning, I can do both. And no, less than 1/10 octave filters, and thereby narrowband, aren’t confined to room correction use. Remember? I don’t do room correction with my DSP, but placing notches manually with the aid of nearfield measurements, added to other vital parameter settings, is an essential tool in tailoring the sound, and has nothing to do with room correction per se.

Again, I’m using my Xilica DSP as a digital crossover only, actively, and as such it’s a much more elaborative "equalizer" than an analog device on top of the benefit of optimized the amp to driver interfacing sans a passive crossover between the amp and drivers. For "equalization" I don’t need no an extra device; actively the DSP is the sole tool for this very purpose as the "heart" of the speaker with its function as a digital crossover.

My only point here is to get Loki users to try pro analog. You do you. I’ll do me.

If you’re still referring to the Schiit Loki Max, it’s an analog equalizer, not digitally-based. You’re the one who conflates what I do with the "Loki Max guys," but it’s two very different scenarios.

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.

Sorry, that doesn’t tell me much. How would you know about how passionate others are in their ventures? You only know what they write.

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.

There’s much more to a DSP than that, not least also acting as a crossover at the same time (we’re talking months of optimizations in my case tailoring the speaker sound from ground up).

My guy locally says even the best DSP for room correction leaves a slight haze and grain to the mids. I want to hear on my own though.

If you’d heard a quality DSP like a Xilica acting as digital crossover actively, you would know the passive speaker iteration with a crossover on the output side of the amp is the less resolved outcome of the two - by a wide margin. There’s nothing "hazy" about the sound here, on the contrary.

Sorry so excessive here. Again just my passion coming out. Let’s just leave it at I need to hear what you’re doing and you need to hear what I’m doing. Fair enough?

That’s the preferable scenario, but it seems you’re based in Florida, US and I reside in Scandinavia, so..

Oh, and Charter Oak PEQ-1 reviews from 2010 call it a “magic box”. Literally. Sounds a bit more serious when a studio engineer says this, huh? And don’t call that arrogant. Am simply responding to you own condescension. I know am asking for you to react. Wanted to say that earlier but forgot. Sorry. Posting these in between sets at the gym. (Couldn’t wait til home😆). Let’s call a truce, hopefully.

An important step communicating is knowing, or trying at least to get bearing on what’s discussed in the first place, and its context. Your use of an analog mastering broadband EQ device is likely as an active component and thus a buffer or impedance matching unit to boot (much like an active preamp), whereas my context is a different one that also involves amp-driver interfacing; it’s hardly an apples to apples comparison, on top of EQ’ing offering different opportunities - depending on the technology involved.