With mine you can turn treble pot up all the way (not that you’d do that) and a symphony still sounds like a symphony. With the max doing that was a noticeable loss in staging and SQ and unnatural sound set in. Change in quality of timbre or artifacts? Not sure. Big boosts just not as beautiful of clean. Small changes, yes, fine.
|
|
|
Ok. I know this is not a Charter Oak thread. But it’s also not a Schiit EQ thread. I will stop sharing links about this wonderful device. So as not to annoy anyone here by being excessive. I just cannot say enough good things about this piece and felt I should share with the world how well it fits in a home stereo chain. Thanks for listening, and sorry for any over exuberance
|
What I DID like about the Max is how transparent it is in flat position. But in boosting bass or treble frequencies to any degree beyond +3 or so (many older recordings warrant that) it just doesn’t have the same chops as a good pro piece has in boosting. But yes, in very small quantities of change it’s a wonderful box.
|
@sudnh , respectfully you’re wrong. You can make less than perfect recordings on hi fi gear sound better EVERY TIME without sacrificing transparency with the right high end analog hardware EQ, of which we’ve elaborated on many here. Simply put, you are wrong. I’ve run blinded ab tests on multiple people in my house with the above setup and they chose the EQ IN EVERY SINGLE TIME. And my gear is quite hi fi, trust me.
|
The Michelangelo is raved about its sonics on Gearspace. It’s beautiful as well. 2 rack unit height and 19” wide. Same as my CO. All dials are stereo. No left and right dials. Check it out online, if you’re so inclined.
|
@mirolab , thanks for saying the ‘better’ word. I totally agree with everything you say! And yes, you are right that the Charter Oak is not truly transparent. But with Cardas cables and all balanced circuitry the EQ actually sounds better, yes now I said better, with it engaged and all the dials on flat than true complete bypass. But yes, it has its own sound. With great cabling I prefer that sound over true bypass. And when you start turning the dials, well, as you know the results are amazing. Yes, the right EQ does mean BETTER for those many records that suffer. You and I are on the exact same page. Will look for your current Vintage EQ on Reverb. 😊
|
To clarify, “true complete bypass “ as I stated above means the tape loop ‘Rec’ button on my Bryston amp is OFF. meaning the unit is completely bypassed. That’s how I ab it. By toggling my amps Rec button on and off. On and the loop containing the EQ is active. Off and it’s completely out of the picture. So further to your point, with the EQ switched to ‘bypass’ , Rec off sounds better (slightly) than Rec in. Like you said, not truly transparent. But who cares if when the unit if switched to EQ In and with all the dials set on flat that that sounds better than my amp alone, Rec out? I know all this is confusing:
amp rec in and EQ on and flat sounds best. Followed by amp rec out (true bypass). Followed by amp rec in and EQ out.
|
Mike Deming said he designed the unit to be this way. Namely EQ In has some favorable effect even with the dials on flat. I asked because of the above observations. Hence with this unit true transparency is unnecessary.
|
@mirolab , have you done any direct comparisons between any pro hardware EQ and the Lokius or Loki Max?
|
Digital EQ is flat and 2 dimensional compared to high end analog EQ. I’ve directly compared modest curves on Roon and Auralic digital EQ as well as Mojo2 104 bit “lossless” UHD EQ against Charter Oak. The CO beats all 3 easily in terms of all hi fi qualities/ descriptors including image specificity. Particularly in the realm of high frequencies. So I don’t agree that digital is better in terms of image specificity. Minimal phase shift exists with the higher end analog solutions and they just sound way better. At least mastering and home playback. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Go read what audio engineers have to say on forums like Gearspace
|
@mirolab , what did Mike say to you regarding the transparency of the peq1? I checked out your Skyline unit. Looks compelling! Of the two units, which treble and bass filters sound better, putting aside transparency? Lastly, the more expensive studio EQs you’ve owned (Manley Massive Passive, wow) sound much better than Schiit EQs yes? I found them to not even be close.
my friend, we are kindred spirits!! I’m so happy there’s another out there like me!
|
@mijostyn it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Digital can never compete with analog for example in lifting treble air bands to give life to a dull recording. Ask any studio engineer. Read online if you don’t believe me. Now, if you are not tone shaping but instead attempting room correction EQ then yes, digital is better. I think to generalize, for surgical cutting digital is easily superior. Again, it depends on what you are trying to do. I only use EQ to spice up a dull recording. That means high end tone shaping. That means bass and or treble lifts. In this context analog wins EVERY TIME.
|
|
@mijostyn , as the old saying goes you and I will have to agree to disagree. I am always (it’s my sub hobby) comparing digital implementations for tone shaping to high end analog for tone control. There’s simply not enough headroom with digital for a bass or treble boost without having to cut master gain. Which always KILLS dynamics and imaging on EVERY digital implementation I’ve tried. In other words, digital clipping sets in far more quickly than analog clipping or distortion. Finally, high frequency boosts have less natural effect on cymbals than analog. Listen, if I’m observing the same thing in post production that the engineers observe in mastering, well then…
|
Digital for treble tonal boost is awful. The fact that no one in the world other than 2 of us here on this stream use high end pro analog hardware EQ in post production is why everyone is afraid of treble. Few know what a beautiful thing it can be to use a quality analog air band to open up a recording on hi fi gear. and no, the Loki can’t do this very well.
|
As @mirolab as smartly stated previously, great recordings sound perfect without ANY EQ , so our gear is sound and very hi fi. Again, my comments are regarding on the fly “fixing” of suboptimal recordings. And by the way, why is recalling a stored preset any easier than turning a dial?
|
@rbertalotto , that’s room corrective EQ. Totally different than tone shaping EQ. You COULD do both though if needed. Fortunately my room is good, as the best recordings sound perfect without EQ.
|
The reason FLAT is not always what we want to hear hearkens back to my link earlier in this thread to the cello palette Levinson discussion regarding the fact that not all recordings are created equal
|
The benefits for me outweigh these concerns. By the way, the noise with the EQ in with my gear is negligible, un noticeable. On a classical piano solo with EQ in and volume at 50% (very very loud), I don’t hear audible noise
|
High end pro audio gear is top flight. No audible noise.
|
Yes. To both. Re read the thread!
|
Sorry the frustration. Yes have compared directly. It’s in my link on page 1. It’s stated elsewhere throughout. The 3 pro pieces I’ve had in my home are on page 1. I suspect @mirolab has had many more pro pieces in his home.
|
Ah @mijostyn …but I did. It’s all laid out in the link with my first post on this thread. I pulled it from head fi. Perhaps you didn’t copy and open. It was a little tricky. It was a thread titled The Charter Oak PEQ-1. I’ll copy all the text and paste it so you don’t have to open a link:
|
I felt at this point since I’m using the piece with synergistic success in two separate chains that I’d post some history on it. I initially bought it from SoundPure pro audio to insert in the tape loop of my Bryston B135 SST2 integrated amp with onboard dac. That was about 2013. About 3 years after Mike Deming at Charter Oak started producing it. Mike was well know for using highest quality parts and hand crafted attention in making his mics compressors and equalizers and his equipment has always sounded highly musical with excellent resolution and staging. I felt immediately I had struck gold having that EQ of his in my tape loop on my hi fi amp. The sound has always been magical. Even on the best recordings I preferred looping it in with the click of a button. Talk about a true bypass. Clicking out the tape loop you have the true straight source line in. The sound though with loop in has always been preferable. Even as I advanced recently my headphone chain rapidly and my listening skills advancing as well.
So, after years of enjoying this magic sauce in my big rig, I made a friend here on head fi when I purchased the Fostex TH900 and a Mojo2 and started chatting about them on Fostex forum. A really good guy many of you know named Geoff. We have remained close as “odd fellows” because I like to EQ a lot, mainly tone shaping, but Geoff doesn’t do much. Yet we share stories. We share listening observations. I read his excellent reviews, we totally respect each other’s differences in our respective approaches to developing our hi fi chains. It was because of my friendship with Geoff that I built out a much better desktop headphone chain than my Th900 and Mojo2. I now have Matrix Audio X Sabre 3 serving analog high end balanced source material to my Headamp GSX Mini balanced amp and out to my Hifiman HE1000SE, otherwise known affectionately as HEKse. While the sound quality was super, I still felt compelled to try the professional balanced analog mastering EQ by Charter Oak in my chain. Fell in love with it there too. Bought another one used in top notch condition from a studio engineer on Reverb and now I own 2.
Simply put, this piece has uniquely amazing musicality for pro gear and amazing synergy therefore with the robust full throated beautiful mids found in high fi gear. It’s worth noting that I’ve had the pleasure of comparing it in my big rig to multiple analog EQ pieces renowned in mastering circles as well as the Schiit Loki Max. It beat the Avalon AD2055 as well as the Millennia NSEQ4 by a noticeable margin in the more musical and less analytical department. Margins close here though, as all pieces well known in studios across the globe. It TROUNCED the Loki Max. Schiit Loki Max and Lokius are the only “hi fi analog” EQ devices made specifically for audiophiles and home playback systems that I’m aware of. If any of you are acquainted with these EQ’s, I will simply tell you that you have no idea how good tone shaping analog EQ can sound in a high Fi configuration until you’ve heard the Charter Oak. The Schiit products, I’m sorry to say, just aren’t in the same ballpark. The Charter Oak handily beats my my Auralic Aries DSP parametric. Same with Roon’s. Just no contest.
There is one unfortunate caveat though. Mike Deming no longer makes them and hasn’t for at least a few years. A California company has taken over the name and production of the last several years’ units. Mike Deming stays in occasional touch with me and has verified that these units don’t sound as good as his production era ones. So if you look for one online used, check to see if the beautiful gloss faceplate finish has disappeared as well as the numbers on the left and right master gain dials. If so, don’t purchase! Check serial number and bounce it off me. I’ve attached two pics. It’s a beautiful piece. This thread is simply my paying homage to a uniquely synergistic and transformative piece that never quits thrilling me for a decade now. I felt I owed it to Mike and Charter Oak to write about it here, as it’s meant so much to me in my hi fi endeavors. Oh, and Cardas Clear Sky XLR cables highly recommended in connecting your CO to your hi fi amp.
Thanks for letting me share!
|
So the speakers are Martin Logans. That’s not in there. I use Transparent speaker cable. The short coaxial digital cable connecting my source streamer Auralic Aries is a Bryston cable. As mentioned in the post, I have 1000 dollars worth of Cardas Clear Sky XLR balanced cable connecting the EQ to the tape loop of the amp.
if you’ll humor me and wade through all of the post, you’ll find a quite respectable and quite hi fi headphone chain. Used same Cardas cabling to insert the EQ between the source and the desktop amp. The HEKse, by the way, are simply AMAZING headphones. The headphone chain honestly sounds freaking unbelievable. Particularly with CO EQ in there.
|
Bottom line is I bought the Loki Max for the headphone chain. But when I heard it against my CO it took me all of 10-20 minutes to conclude it was inferior sonically. So the next day it was shipped back to Schiit and I bought a second CO used but in great condition for the headphone chain from a sound engineer in Austria. Bought it on Reverb.
|
At the risk of boring you all (skip it if you want) I am going to post my story I had sent to my buddy Geoff at Head Fi about how I got into merging pro EQ with hi fi:
So a little about me and this hobby. I was always interested in SQ from a young age. Probably 14 or so. Had a Kenwood set with a JVC SEA-1 10 band equalizer running into the tape loop of that set up. That was the 80’s and equalizers were all the rave. And so it went that I used mine a lot. Skip ahead to about 1998. My beloved Kenwood amp died I had kept all those years because it sounded great. So I shopped my second stereo. Got some Martin Logan Montage at Best Buy for 2 grand and a 500 dollar onkyo av amp. Hated the SQ. Kenwood still sort of worked. Well enough to compare amps. So did. Found the Kenwood despite its connection failings sounded better than the new onkyo. How could this be? At this moment my foray into hi fi began. My income started to improve around that time as well, which helped. Started devoting my readings to hi fi mags, reviews, and forums. Started listening to the gear I read about in showrooms. Traveled all over south Florida and Orlando and Melbourne to listen to really good gear. As my ear improved I began to appreciate NOT ONLY the tonality changes of an equalizer BUT ALSO the hi fi characteristics of the source material unequalized: timbre, pacing, dynamics, resolution, ink black backgrounds and soundstage not just height and width but front to back,etc. I began to appreciate just how different recordings can be in terms of these hi fi characteristics AND in terms of tonality. I started listening to lots of different EQ implementations, both digital and analog, but listening from the perspective of hi fi characteristics and not just tonality. As you can imagine I became very picky about equalizers. The vast majority very disappointing. Turn them on and resolution and soundstage suffered immensely. But these were cheap EQ,s. What about the professional recording world? They must by definition use state of the art equalizers.
At that moment the lightning bolt hit me: I want to own hi fi gear AND integrate in a hi fi connectivity a hi fi EQ. The first part was easy. It didn’t take long before I settled on the Bryston B135 integrated amp. By now I was well aware I could go better with separates but I had heard this integrated and knew I’d sound great. Also money and space savings key. So bought the b135 for about 6 grand with onboard dac. The unit had a dedicated tape loop. Completely transparent. The next step was what to put in there. As your aware, you don’t shop equalizers in hi fi stores. Lots of blank stares and why would you want to do that and ruin your wonderful amps straight signal? Well, I knew at that point what I wanted. Clear as day. So I started reading reviews by studio production folks on pro gear. Lots and lots. No showrooms though for this hunt. Had to go solely on reviews. I loved the Charter Oak reviews and the folks I’d been talking to at Sound Pure said for my application the Charter Oak would be the best sounding and most musical least etched or analytical fo mate with my Bryston. So I bought it for about 3 grand. The moment I heard it I was floored. I played all different types of music and turned some dials. Best test to see if a hardware EQ can change tone AND still retain hi fi characteristics of source signal is piano, female vocals, classical jazz. So lots of those genres were played and wow results every time. Once I learned cables make difference I upgraded all cabling in the system for a few thousand more dollars. The Cardas are truly spectacular and really brought out the Charter Oaks full potential. Im at resting point with this rig for 3 years now. Ironically the Martin Logan’s are the weakest link in the system. But frankly I don’t care. It sounds that good.
Every now and again I go to Ed’s Audible Images in Melbourne—he has the best gear in Florida—and listen to Diana Krall and other known artists. Then I come home and listen to this same music on my setup, with some mild EQ ing. Every time I prefer my gear. It’s simply more engaging to me. Is it more “hi fi” as previously defined? No, probably not. But the burning question is is it any LESS hi fi? After years of this I still argue no. Indeed to me there is something magical about the way the two pieces interact. As I’ve advanced my hi fi headphone game, I still get goosebumps every time I crank up the big rig. I feel very lucky to have gotten to this point in my audio adventures.
|
@mijostyn , just read your entire post. No need to insult. The hair spray part was uncalled for. I have told you my experience playing extensively with analog vs digital high end EQ. My experience differs from yours but agrees with @mirolab and a gazillion sound engineers who post their mastering experiences all over the internet. Again, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But please don’t be insulting. It is beneath you. I have PLENTY of hi fi listening experience, a well trained ear, and I’m telling you the way I do it is superior SQ playback for many many recordings than what you’re used to hearing.
|
I will however acknowledge digital EQ is advancing rapidly. Have heard of the expensive DEQX products forthcoming. Would love to try that someday
|
@mirolab , please tell me if your Vintage Skyline piece has better sounding bass and treble bands than the CO. If so, I may buy one.
|
@tattooedtrackman , if you make such a change, it may prove very exciting and gratifying for you.
@mijostyn , thanks for your comments. Your knowledge base in the digital realm clearly goes beyond mine. I just know what sounds great and what doesn’t and have hit upon an equation that works for me. I have had many say my approach sounds seriously good, so I guess I’d simply say just be open minded is all. My speakers are old. They are Martin Logan Montage dipoles. They are entry level hi fi but were favorably reviewed in Stereophile. And I’ve heard them on seriously great amplification at Audible Images in Melbourne compared directly against 12,000 dollar Sonus Faber Olympica speakers. Ed the dealer there and myself were shocked that the didn’t lag very far behind. But they did. And when I update the speakers I will really have a killer sound. Honestly, the pro studio CO has upped my game so much that I simply have been complacent in replacing them as the SQ is already phenomenal.
|
It’s funny. Whenever I rent a car I observe people’s tonal preferences on mid fi car systems by seeing where the last driver set the bass and treble. It’s almost always the case that both are jacked way up or maxed out. Hell, as a youth I did this with my old school stereos. You might easily say these are inferior systems and you would be right. Be there are lessons to be learned in the observation made. Why do people like smiley face EQ on mid fi systems? The answer is they are trying to improve perceived fidelity or realism with the limited stereo and tools they have. So adding bass gives more depth and weight to the sound. Fair game. Adding treble is an attempt to give more sense of air and space between instruments. Another fair attempt with the limited situation. So on cheaper systems smiley faced EQ is an attempt to get closer to hi fi. But it’s merely an approximation, not as good.
now, move on to the fully formed images of instruments in a high fidelity system. Rich full bass. Deep wet but fast note saturation. Great height depth width of soundstage. Snappy, accurate transient response. Now to that base ‘painting’ if you will you then add to your average recording REAL air and space with a studio EQ analog air band and a touch more well textured controlled but detailed bass bell or shelf (your preference). Now you’re really cooking!
The magic lies in adding a judicious amount of high end studio EQ to an already very hi fi mids base. The combination is absolutely addicting! You are essentially continuing the mastering needs of that recording specific to YOUR system on the post production playback side. A true case for the cello palette Levinson theory in the article i cited much earlier in the thread.
I almost liken all of this to cooking up a beautifully palatable recipe. That’s why I call it special sauce. It’s uber hi fi through ‘cheating’, I often joke! Lotta bang for the buck here!
|
@tattooedtrackman , you’re missing the broader point that MANY pro EQ sound equally as good. In other words, try @mirolab ’s Skyline Vintage unit. It is 300 dollars LESS than the Loki Max. And based on my very favorable listening experiences with the Avalon and Millennia units (both of which sounded better than Loki, easily), that you’d do great with @mirolab s recommendation. I will likely try it out of sheer curiosity. As I’ve done with other studio EQs. I’m very very passionate about this approach. For a decade now. The sound of a good studio analog EQ in your chain will blow your mind. Also of huge advantage is the dual channel control of his Skyline. Super easy adjustments on the fly like Loki. But better sound
|
Oh, by the way Mike Deming generation CO sound SUBLIME. the newer CO models with the dull faceplate to differentiate them still sound better than the Loki Max
|
I found another new to ship high end analog pro balanced EQ that has full function stereo ganged controls with stereo link. You can operate in full stereo link from EITHER side, L or R, all the dials. Which is GREAT. it’s by Wes Audio with both tube and transformer balanced output. Super product. Call NGTubeEQ. Cool 6 grand, but looks uber high end. Serious EQ! 🎶😊
|
I usually bump mids on CO half dot. More of a W curve. Only slight mids bump. Done right, the whole thing sounds bigger richer fuller while retaining to my ear all the hi fi qualities of the unaltered base recording. All 3 of mids lows highs sound bigger and better in every respect post EQ. Going back and forth I honest to God cannot hear a lost hi fi quality or characteristic at all. Only better. Timbre of all instruments stay natural too.
|
Mahgister, I am happy to share my experience with this wonderful device. My pleasure!
|
|
I think the treble boost is the area that studio analog does best. Listen, I’m listening on headphones to Fontaines D.C. second album right now on headphones with slight bass and modest treble lift. Sounds freaking fabulous. I have stuck the Chord Mojo2 104 bit UHD lossless EQ in the chain and it’s no contest. The fullness and saturation and sustain of the notes just kills the less natural and truncated sounding notes of the digital. EVEN THOUGH IT 104 bit processing. How much better can DEQX or other be?
not only does this equalizer sound fan fabulous but I can just turn a dial like simple tone controls to boost or attenuate. I HAVE TO HEAR THE BEST DIGITAL AND SEE WHAT A TREBLE BOOST DOES TO THE REST OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND FIDELITY
|
The problem is you’ve never heard any of the analog hardware I’ve played with, and I’ve never heard your SOTA digital EQ you have used. I’ve heard a lot of purportedly excellent digital though…
|
Slower less busy tracks with room to breathe leaves better reproduced cymbals on analog. Cymbals really stand out a lot as much better. Reverb, if used, and vocals leading and trailing edges. All better on the analog. Clarity resolution top notch and kills the Chord Mojo2 EQ. But DEQX? Better?
|
Digital still cannot add air to the mix, top octave, without some sonic sacrifice to the mids IMHO. granted have tried the most expensive digital solutions. @mijostyn , which digital EQ does broad upper treble bell or shelf boost best? Or do you never boost treble? In home playback, talking.
|
I’ll bet as a digital EQ guy, you never boost treble. Why? because it would suck. Compel me. Prove me wrong. Give me something to sink my teeth into.
|
|
Yeah, all balanced for me. No adapter or extra box. My Cardas are pseudobalanced, special pin scheme so they are playing at full unity gain when connecting to the single ended tape loop in the Bryston. Works perfectly.
|
I love the tape loop insertion as opposed to placing the EQ between the source and amp. Tape loop allows for that “true bypass” that ultimately you want for comparing your settings to no equalizer
|
|
MQ112 very interesting looking! Would love to hear. Don’t like one thing though. Looks like second to last filter, lower treble, is 3K. That’s really upper mids. Would prefer 5K, or even 8K there
|
